Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vol.:(0123456789)
European Journal of Psychology of Education
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00742-0
1 3
Parenting andteaching styles inrelation tostudent
characteristics andself‑regulated learning
UrškaŽerak1 · MojcaJuriševič1 · SonjaPečjak2
Received: 27 February 2023 / Revised: 24 August 2023 / Accepted: 30 August 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
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 authorita-
tive 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 par-
enting styles (discipline-oriented parenting, democratic parenting, and responsive par-
enting) and three subtypes of teaching styles (autonomy-supportive teaching, diverse
teaching, and directive teaching) were identified. Results indicate that students who per-
ceive autonomy-supportive teaching and responsive parenting styles exhibit higher levels
of SRL. Autonomy-supportive teaching was positively associated with student achieve-
ment. This study highlights the importance of an authoritative parenting and teaching
style for the development of SRL in primary school.
Keywords Parenting style· Teaching style· Self-regulated learning· Primary education·
Autonomy support· Latent profile analysis
* Urška Žerak
urska.zerak@pef.uni-lj.si
1 Department ofEducation Studies, Faculty ofEducation, University ofLjubljana, Kardeljeva
ploščad 16, 1000Ljubljana, Slovenia
2 Department ofPsychology, Faculty ofArts, University ofLjubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
U.Žerak et al.
1 3
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 pan-
demic has highlighted the importance of students gaining autonomy and taking control
of their own learning (Trias etal., 2021), especially for students from vulnerable groups
who need continuous attention and support to ensure equal access to education (Jeriček
Klanšček etal., 2021). SRL is a fundamental process in learning and academic achieve-
ment (Dermitzaki & Kallia, 2021). It acts as an indirect factor between individual stu-
dent 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 andeducational 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 environ-
ment (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005; Pintrich, 2005; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2008). It is a
complex and multifaceted construct that includes cognitive (e.g., memorization, elabora-
tion, 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, organisa-
tion, monitoring and self-assessment of the learning process, while the cognitive compo-
nent involves the use of various learning strategies and tactics to memorise material. The
use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies is influenced by the motivational compo-
nent, 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 pro-
gress 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 pos-
sible adjustment of the strategy, and finally, outcome assessment (Ziegler etal., 2012).
Students’ use of SRL learning strategies is context-dependent and varies by subject
area (Pintrich, 2005). Although empirical studies have not yet systematically exam-
ined the influence of individual subject areas on students’ use of cognitive, metacog-
nitive, and motivational learning strategies, research indicates the domain specific-
ity of SRL (Alexander etal., 2011). Vandevelde etal. (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,
Parenting andteaching styles inrelation tostudent…
1 3
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 etal.,
2023). Research showed that students from low-SES backgrounds have less developed SRL
strategies (Pappas etal., 2003; Trias etal., 2021; Vandevelde etal., 2017) and tend to have
lower academic achievement than their peers (Boonk etal., 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 etal., 2015; Skubic Ermenc, 2020).
The social context ofself‑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 rein-
forcer for the student’s behaviour (Martinez-Pons, 2002; Zimmerman, 2013). The devel-
opment of students’ SRL is not innate but the result of an interaction between students’
maturational processes and their education (de Ruig etal., 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 differ-
ences in SRL have been reported (Cadima etal., 2016; Denton etal., 2015; Li etal., 2018;
Peeters etal., 2016), research has shown that all students, regardless of intellectual and aca-
demic 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 etal., 2008; Trias etal., 2021).
Therefore, researchers emphasise the need to systematically develop and promote SRL in
the initial period of education (van der Stel & Veenman, 2010; Vandevelde etal., 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 pro-
cess of SRL, and their predominant teaching style (Lombaerts etal., 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 stu-
dents 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 etal., 2012); and by encouraging
students to attribute success to the use of appropriate learning strategies rather than to
ability or luck (Pintrich, 2005).
U.Žerak et al.
1 3
The development of SRL is influenced by parental characteristics (e.g., parental capac-
ity 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 etal., 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 situ-
ations. 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 emo-
tional atmosphere in the family (Steinberg, 2001). Through emotional attachment to par-
ents, children internalise their parents’ values and learn how to form optimal relationships
with other adults (Gregory & Weinstein, 2004). A positive relationship with parents pro-
vides a form of social support that enhances students’ ability to self-regulate (Balaguer
etal., 2021). Baumrind’s (1971, 2013) classification of parenting styles, which is the most
widely used and researched, includes two basic dimensions: demandingness and respon-
siveness. Demandingness includes parenting behaviours in which parents exhibit control,
maturity demands, and monitoring, whereas responsiveness (i.e., affection) includes par-
enting 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 per-
missive 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 aca-
demic achievement and positive developmental outcomes such as independence, the ability
to self-regulate, establishing appropriate social interaction with peers, the tendency to mas-
ter the environment and learn new things, and flexibility in the school environment, both
cross-sectionally (Baumrind, 1991; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Gagnon etal., 2013; Grol-
nick & Ryan, 1989; Steinberg, 2001) and longitudinally (Baumrind etal., 2010; Steinberg
etal., 1992). In a meta-analytic study, Pinquart (2016) showed that authoritative parenting
style, parental responsiveness, emotional warmth, behavioural control, and autonomy-pro-
moting 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
etal., 2019). Lee etal. (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 stu-
dent self-efficacy, use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and effective time man-
agement. Similarly, Amani etal. (2020) showed that an authoritative parenting style was
positively associated with adolescents’ academic achievement through increased SRL. In
Parenting andteaching styles inrelation tostudent…
1 3
addition, emotional support from the father was found to foster students’ self-monitoring
and metacognitive talk in the classroom (Stright etal., 2001). Kallia and Dermitzaki (2017)
reported that mother’s autonomy-supportive behaviour was positively associated with chil-
dren’s actual use of cognitive strategies, planning, and monitoring skills during a problem-
solving task. Recently, Du etal. (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 etal., 2020;
Kiuru etal., 2012; Walker, 2008). Researchers have argued that teaching style in elemen-
tary school is similar to parenting style (e.g., Pianta etal., 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
etal., 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 incorpo-
rates 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 Card-
enas, 2012). Research suggests that teachers’ autonomy support and structure is positively
related to students’ SRL learning strategies (de Ruig etal., 2023; Sierens etal., 2009; Van-
steenkiste etal., 2012). Moreover, in a longitudinal study, Schuitema etal. (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 authorita-
tive teaching and a number of positive outcomes, including academic achievement and stu-
dent engagement (Kiuru etal., 2012; Vansteenkiste etal., 2012; Yin etal., 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 etal., 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-regula-
tory skills are less developed often have difficulty connecting with peers and building
relationships with teachers and are less successful in school (Piotrowski etal., 2013;
U.Žerak et al.
1 3
Vandevelde etal., 2017). Teachers and parents represent an important factor in the stu-
dent’s social context (de Ruig etal., 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 character-
istics that influence SRL (e.g., Cadima etal., 2016; Denton etal., 2015; Li etal., 2018;
Peeters etal., 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, par-
ticularly 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 par-
enting and teaching styles according to the results of the latent profile analysis.
Based on the research problem and previous studies (e.g., Amani etal., 2020; de
Ruig etal., 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 pro-
files 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 school-
ing 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 par-
ticular school based on geographic criteria and are placed in classes without regard to
their gender, ethnicity, achievement level, or SES. Table1 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).
Parenting andteaching styles inrelation tostudent…
1 3
Instruments
Questionnaire forself‑regulated learning – 7 (FSL‑7)
Designed by Ziegler etal. (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 etal., 2012). Each item
refers to one of the seven steps of SRL: self-assessment, goal setting, strategic plan-
ning, 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). Pre-
liminarily, we confirmed an acceptable fit of the model to the predicted factor structure
Table 1 Students according to
academic performance and SES
variables (N = 328)
2.7% students did not report about their mother’s education
n %
GPA
2 9 2.7
3 70 21.3
4 134 40.9
5 115 35.1
Number of books
0–10 54 16.5
11–25 68 20.7
26–100 102 31.1
101–200 54 16.5
201–500 36 11.0
> 500 14 4.3
Mother’s education
Primary school 11 3.4
Vocational school or vocational high school 135 41.2
Grammar school 9 2.7
Diploma from a post-secondary or higher educa-
tion professional programme
86 26.2
University degree 59 18.0
Master’s degree or PhD 19 5.8
U.Žerak et al.
1 3
(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 ver-
sion 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.), puni-
tive 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 etal. (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 con-
text 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 anddata analyses
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Arts, University of Lju-
bljana. 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
Parenting andteaching styles inrelation tostudent…
1 3
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 estima-
tor 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 consid-
ered (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
Table2. The correlations between SRL and the dimensions of teaching styles, and between
SRL and the dimensions of parenting styles, are low to moderate. Table2 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 andteaching styles profile identification
Table3 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 etal., 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 (Table3). 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 pat-
terns 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
U.Žerak et al.
1 3
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations between study variables (N = 328)
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
Variable M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. SRL 0.54
(0.26)
1.00
2. Teacher’s emotional warmth 2.74
(0.89)
0.19** 1.00
3. Teacher’s autonomy support 3.23
(0.89)
0.23** 0.74** 1.00
4. Teacher’s permissive discipline 1.93
(0.56)
−0.16** 0.27** 0.11* 1.00
5. Teacher’s punitive discipline 2.49
(0.79)
−0.25** −0.21** 0.17** 0.10 1.00
6. Teacher’s democratic discipline 3.07
(0.88)
0.15** 0.64** 0.71** 0.10 −0.01 1.00
7. Parents’ emotional warmth 4.05
(0.70)
0.30** 0.26** 0.21** −0.08 −0.01 0.21** 1.00
8. Parents’ autonomy support 3.77
(0.67)
0.27** 0.26** 0.34** −0.01 −0.07 0.32** 0.53** 1.00
9. Parents’ permissive discipline 2.29
(0.58)
−0.04 0.03 0.02 0.33** 0.09 0.01 0.05 0.01 1.00
10. Parents’ punitive discipline 2.62
(0.78)
−0.13 −0.02 −0.02 0.18** 0.23** 0.02 −0.25** −0.16** 0.08 1.00
11. Parents’ democratic discipline 3.77
(0.76)
0.29** 0.22** 0.29** −0.08 −0.01 0.42** 0.56** 0.54** −0.04 0.01 1.00
Parenting andteaching styles inrelation tostudent…
1 3
Table 3 Summary of fit statistics for latent profile analysis for parenting styles and teaching styles
LL Log-likelihood; # FP Number of free parameters; AIC Akaike information criterion; BIC Bayesian information criterion; SABIC Sample-adjusted BIC; aLMRT Adjusted
Lo-Mendel-Rubin likelihood ratio test; BLRT Bootstrap likelihood ratio test
Model LL #FP AIC BIC SABIC Entropy aLMRT p(aLMRT) BLRT p(BLRT) Smallest
profile (%)
Parenting styles
1 profile −1751.12 10 3522.24 3560.17 3528.45
2 profiles −1635.17 16 3302.35 3363.04 3312.29 0.76 225.40 < 0.001 231.89 < 0.001 30.8
3 profiles −1602.76 22 3249.52 3332.96 3263.18 0.75 63.02 0.19 64.84 < 0.001 7.6
4 profiles −1582.65 28 3221.29 3327.49 3238.68 0.76 39.10 0.33 40.23 < 0.001 1.2
Teaching styles
1 profile −1959.98 10 3939.96 3977.89 3946.17
2 profiles −1802.35 16 3636.70 3697.39 3646.64 0.75 306.44 0.02 315.26 < 0.001 41.5
3 profiles −1713.05 22 3470.09 3553.54 3483.76 0.81 173.62 0.004 178.61 < 0.001 14.0
4 profiles −1674.52 28 3405.03 3511.24 3422.42 0.83 74.90 0.14 77.06 < 0.001 7.0
U.Žerak et al.
1 3
responsive parenting. It is characterised by high levels of parents’ emotional warmth,
autonomy support, and democratic discipline, and low levels of punitive and per-
missive 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’ puni-
tive discipline and the same score for parents’ permissive discipline. The third profile
includes 7.6% of participants and was labelled discipline-oriented parenting. Com-
pared 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 demo-
cratic discipline, autonomy support, and emotional warmth by parents.
For teaching style, the LPA results (Table3), considering the BLRT index, suggest
the four-profiles solution, but further investigation of the fit indices and the theoreti-
cal interpretability and meaningfulness of the different profile solutions supported the
decision to retain the three-profile solution, which also has an appropriate class mem-
bership and entropy value. The average individual posterior probabilities for assign-
ment to a particular latent class in the three-profile model were 0.94, 0.91, 0.89, indi-
cating 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
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Emotional warmth Autonomy supportPermissive discipline Punitive discipline Democratic discipline
Discipline-oriented parenting (7.6%) Democratic parenting (42.4%)Responsive parenting (50%)
Fig. 1 Profiles of parenting styles
Parenting andteaching styles inrelation tostudent…
1 3
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 dis-
cipline and emotional warmth, and low levels of autonomy support and democratic dis-
cipline. 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 andteaching styles, student demographic characteristics andSRL
To examine the differences between the latent profiles of parenting and teaching styles,
the BCH approach was used (Table4). 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 dif-
ferences 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 addi-
tion, 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 (Table4).
1
1.
5
2
2.
5
3
3.
5
4
4.
5
5
Emotional warmth Autonomy supportPermissive discipline Punitive discipline Democratic discipline
Directive teaching (14%) Diverse teaching (49%) Autonomy-supportive teaching (37%)
Fig. 2 Profiles of teaching styles
U.Žerak et al.
1 3
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 par-
enting profile were statistically significant (Table4).
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 (Table4).
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:
Table 4 Means and standard errors of auxiliary variables and test of mean differences across parenting and
teaching styles
0 = female, 1 = male; DEM Democratic; DIS Discipline-oriented; RES Responsive; DIR Directive, DIV
Diverse, AUS Autonomy-supportive; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Gender Number of books Maternal education GPA SRL
M (SE)
Democratic parenting 0.55 (0.05) 2.88 (0.14) 3.06 (0.15) 3.99 (0.08) 0.50 (0.03)
Discipline-oriented
parenting
0.52 (0.11) 2.39 (0.31) 2.95 (0.29) 4.01 (0.17) 0.37 (0.06)
Responsive parenting 0.41 (0.04) 3.16 (0.12) 3.43 (0.13) 4.18 (0.07) 0.61 (0.02)
Overall test (Wald χ2) 3.58 6.35* 4.27 2.90 21.10***
Pairwise tests (Wald χ2)
DEM vs DIS 0.05 1.82 0.10 0.01 3.54
DEM vs RES 3.28 1.93 2.83 2.45 9.35**
DIS vs RES 0.76 5.37* 2.41 0.95 15.37***
M (SE)
Directive teaching 0.52 (0.08) 2.70 (0.23) 2.85 (0.22) 3.86 (0.12) 0.48 (0.04)
Diverse teaching 0.55 (0.04) 2.93 (0.12) 3.17 (0.14) 3.97 (0.07) 0.51 (0.02)
Autonomy-supportive
teaching
0.37 (0.05) 3.15 (0.14) 3.47 (0.15) 4.33 (0.09) 0.61 (0.03)
Overall test (Wald χ2) 6.48* 3.05 5.67* 13.52** 10.86**
Pairwise tests (Wald χ2)
DIR vs DIV 0.08 0.72 1.47 0.49 0.19
DIR vs AUS 2.65 2.81 5.49* 10.03** 7.19**
DIV vs AUS 5.94* 1.22 1.81 9.23** 8.08**
Parenting andteaching styles inrelation tostudent…
1 3
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 disci-
pline-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 back-
grounds 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 etal., 2020; Du etal., 2021; Huang & Prochner, 2003; Kallia & Der-
mitzaki, 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 posi-
tively 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 etal., 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 con-
trol 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 etal., 2010).
In addition, LPAs suggest three subtypes of teaching styles: diverse teaching, auton-
omy-supportive teaching, and directive teaching. The results of this study are consistent
with previous research (e.g., Filippello etal., 2020; Reeve & Cheon, 2021; Wang etal.,
2016) and suggest that autonomy-supportive teaching is positively associated with stu-
dent 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
etal., 2023; Filippello etal., 2020). It is worth noting that students who perceive auton-
omy-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-sup-
portive profile have the highest levels of emotional warmth and democratic discipline,
which are characteristics of authoritative teaching (Kiuru etal., 2012; Walker, 2008).
The findings suggest that authoritative teaching with a particular focus on promoting stu-
dent 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
U.Žerak et al.
1 3
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
etal., 2023; Schuitema etal., 2016; Sierens etal., 2009; Vansteenkiste etal., 2012; Zee
& de Bree, 2017) showing that an autonomy-supportive teaching style is positively asso-
ciated with students’ SRL. Interestingly, students who perceived their teachers as direc-
tive 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 char-
acterised by authoritarian behaviour with a high expression of controlling instructional
behaviour. Therefore, teachers should pay more attention to students from low-SES back-
grounds and consciously rethink their behaviour in an autonomy-promoting manner,
which could help these students overcome factors that negatively affect their academic
progress (Brandisauskiene etal., 2023; Vandevelde etal., 2017).
Parents and teachers can support students’ autonomy by clearly articulating their
expectations, providing appropriate supports based on their developmental characteris-
tics and abilities, and providing feedback that promotes students’ perceived competence
and SRL while actively involving them in decision making and respecting their opin-
ions (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 super-
vise 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 etal., 2016). In addition, students’ perceptions of the family
environment affect their perceptions of the learning context, as confirmed by Paulson
etal. (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 etal., 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 possi-
ble that some students are not sufficiently aware of their learning process or use certain
learning strategies unconsciously (Vandevelde etal., 2015). Moreover, while researchers
(e.g., Kiuru etal., 2012; Paulson etal., 1998; Pinquart, 2016) emphasise the importance
of students’ perceptions of the home and school learning environment, these percep-
tions 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 inter-
actions 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
Parenting andteaching styles inrelation tostudent…
1 3
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 par-
ents 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 etal., 2012; Walker, 2008). Second, they emphasise the importance
of coherence between the family and school environments and parent-teacher col-
laboration 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 stu-
dent, but also for his or her social environment, particularly for at-risk students and
students from low-SES backgrounds (Trias etal., 2021; Vandevelde etal., 2017).
Findings could be incorporated into teacher professional development programmes.
Teachers can model SRL by teaching explicit instruction of SRL skills in their les-
sons 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
etal., 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 etal., 2019). It is also important to
inform parents about the importance of their active involvement in their children’s
education (Boonk etal., 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., inter-
est, academic goal orientation, personality traits, self-concept) and examines the relative
contributions of parental and school practises could deepen our understanding of the fac-
tors 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.
U.Žerak et al.
1 3
Declarations
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.
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 Com-
mons 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:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
Alexander, P. A., Dinsmore, D. L., Parkinson, M. M., & Winters, F. I. (2011). Self-regulated learning in aca-
demic domains. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learn-
ing and Performance (pp. 393–407). Routledge.
Alnafea, T., & Curtis, D. D. (2017). Influence of mothers’ parenting styles on self-regulated academic learn-
ing among Saudi elementary school students. Issues in Educational Research, 27(3), 399–416. https://
www. iier. org. au/ iier27/ alnaf ea. html
Amani, M., Nazifi, M., & Sorkhabi, N. (2020). Parenting styles and academic achievement of early adoles-
cent girls in Iran: Mediating roles of parent involvement and self-regulated learning. European Jour-
nal 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. Psycho-
logical 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 strat-
egy 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. statm odel. com/ examp les/ webno tes/ webno te21. 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 inter-
vention. 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/ anale sps. 408171
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 1–103.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ h0030 372
Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P. A. Cowan & M. Heth-
erington (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
Parenting andteaching styles inrelation tostudent…
1 3
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 pat-
terns and practices on adolescent development. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10, 157–201. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15295 19090 32907 90
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and inter-
vention. 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 stu-
dents: The role of teacher support and equity. SAGE Open, 13(2), 1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 21582
44023 11813 84
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 Bul-
letin, 113(3), 487–496. http:// cites eerx. ist. psu. edu/ viewd oc/ downl oad? 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 Psychol-
ogy 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, devel-
opment, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0012 801
Dent, A. L., & Koenka, A. C. (2015). The relation between self-regulated learning and academic achieve-
ment 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/ 10409 289. 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
U.Žerak et al.
1 3
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/ 07435 58403 258859
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and compe-
tence 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/ 02568 54040 95950 37
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 behav-
iors among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic, HBSC Survey findings, 2020]. Nacionalni
inštitut za javno zdravje. https:// nijz. si/ publi kacije/ neena kosti-v- zdrav ju- in-z- zdrav jem- povez animi-
veden ji- med- mlado stniki- v- casu- pande mije- 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/ artic le/ downl
oad/ 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- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2023/ 06/
PIRLS 21_ Nacio nalno Poroc ilo_ Splet. pdf
Kron-Sperl, V., Schneider, W., & Hasselhorn, M. (2008). The development and effectiveness of memory strat-
egies 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-regula-
tion. 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-regu-
lation 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/ s1543 0421t ip4102_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/ oxfor dhb/
97801 99934 898. 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 Mod-
eling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10705 51070 15753 96
OECD. (2021). Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. https:// www. oecd- ilibr ary.
org/ sites/ e7ee8 6cb- en/ index. html? itemI d=/ conte nt/ compo nent/ e7ee8 6cb- en# chapt er- d1202 0e189 68
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
Parenting andteaching styles inrelation tostudent…
1 3
Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning. Educational Psy-
chologist, 25(1), 87–102. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 6985e p2501_7
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 36, 89–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 6985E P3602_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/ 02724 31698 01800 1001
Peeters, J., De Backer, F., Kindekens, A., Triquet, K., & Lombaerts, K. (2016). Teacher differences in pro-
moting 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 relation-
ships, 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 chil-
dren 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- proje ct. 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/
00461 52090 30289 90
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/
00461 520. 2020. 18626 57
Reid, C. A. Y., Roberts, L. D., Roberts, C. M., & Piek, J. P. (2015). Towards a model of contempo-
rary parenting: The parenting behaviours and dimensions questionnaire. PLoS ONE, 10(6), 1–23.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 01141 79
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Soft-
ware, 48(2), 1–36. https:// users. ugent. be/ ~yross eel/ lavaan/ lavaa nIntr oduct ion. pdf
Sanders, M. R., Turner, K. M., & Metzler, C. W. (2019). Applying self-regulation principles in the deliv-
ery 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 relation-
ship 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/ 00070 9908X 304398
Skubic Ermenc, K. (2020). Approaches to inclusive education in Slovenia from a comparative angle. Edu-
cational Reforms Worldwide, BCES Conference Books (pp. 262–269). Bulgarian Comparative Educa-
tion Society. https:// files. eric. ed. gov/ fullt ext/ ED608 393. pdf
Sontag, C., & Stoeger, H. (2015). Can highly intelligent and high-achieving students benefit from train-
ing 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
U.Žerak et al.
1 3
Spera, C. (2005). A review of relationships among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adoles-
cent 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 adoles-
cent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed.
Child Development, 63, 1266–1281. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 8624. 1992. tb016 94.x
Stright, A. D., Neitzel, C., Sears, K. G., & Hoke Sinex, L. (2001). Instruction begins in the home: Rela-
tions between parental instruction and children’s self-regulation in the classroom. Journal of Edu-
cational 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 experi-
ence and age on teachers’ interactional styles. The Educational Forum, 85(1), 77–88. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1080/ 00131 725. 2019. 16986 85
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 longitudi-
nal 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/ 00220 671. 2014. 999363
Vandevelde, S., Van Keer, H., Schellings, G., & van Hout Wolters, B. (2015). Using think-aloud proto-
col 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. learn instr uc. 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 Teach-
ing 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.), Metacogni-
tion 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/ S1532 6985E P3804_1
Yin, H., Lee, J. C. K., & Zhang, Z. (2009). Examining Hong Kong students’ motivational beliefs, strat-
egy use and their relations with two relational factors in classrooms. Educational Psychology, 29(6),
685–700. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01443 41090 32188 44
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/ 17405 629. 2016. 11965 87
Žerak, U. (2019). Teacher’s interaction styles scale. Slovenian adaptation. Unpublished material, Depart-
ment of Psychology, Faculty of Arts.
Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2005). Trainingshandbuch selbstreguliertes Lernen I: Lernökologische Strat-
egien für Schüler der 4. Jahrgangsstufe Grundschule zur Verbesserung mathematischer Kompeten-
zen [Accompanying manual for training self-regulated learning I: Resource strategies for fourth-grade
primary school students to improve math skills]. Pabst.
Parenting andteaching styles inrelation tostudent…
1 3
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. Edu-
cational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00461 520. 2013. 794676
ZOsn - Zakon o osnovni šoli ZOsn [Basic School Act]. (1996). http:// pisrs. si/ Pis. web/ pregl edPre dpisa? id=
ZAKO4 48
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, Uni-
versity 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 posi-
tivity. 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 develop-
ment (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 devel-
opment (pp. 113–135). University of Maribor, University Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18690/ um. pef.1.
2023.7
U.Žerak et al.
1 3
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 crea-
tive-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/ filea dmin/
Datot eke/ CRSN/ PhD/ Educa tion- 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 Jour-
nal, 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 learn-
ers 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 educa-
tion research and practice. In I. Devetak & S. A. Glažar (Eds.), Applying bio-measurements methodolo-
gies 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:// psiho loska- obzor ja. si/ arhiv_ clanki/ 2017/
juris evic_ 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/ przeg lad_ psych ologi
czny_ 20201_ na_ strone_ inter netowa. pdf
Licul, N., & Juriševič, M. (2022). The perception of creative classroom climate in elementary school stu-
dents: comparison between regular and enriched visual art classes. High Ability Studies, 33(1), 45–63.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13598 139. 2020. 18551 24
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 Educa-
tion in Slovenian Compulsory Basic School: Possibilities for Gifted education. Roeper Review, 40(2),
139–150. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02783 193. 2018. 14347 10
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 - com-
parison 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.
Parenting andteaching styles inrelation tostudent…
1 3
Sonja Pečjak, PhD, Professor of Educational Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Uni-
versity 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. Fron-
tiers 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. 20185 41306
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 Slo-
venia. 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 educa-
tion, 14(1), 51–62. https:// www. iejee. com/ index. php/ IEJEE/ artic le/ 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. Psy-
chology 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. 20185 41306
Pirc, T., Pečjak, S., Polesek, A., Štirn, M. (2023). Perceived parenting styles and emotional control as pre-
dictors 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 cyberbul-
lying. Didactica Slovenica Pedagoška obzorja, 38(2), 100–115.