Art:10.1007/s10648 010 9148 1 PDF

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598
DOI 10.1007/s10648-010-9148-1
REVIEW ARTICLE
The Role of Self-Regulatory and Metacognitive Competence

in the Motor Performance Difficulties of Children
with Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Theoretical
and Empirical Review
Claire Sangster Joki & David Whitebread
Published online: 2 December 2010

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract Children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) experience difficulty

coping with everyday demands due to difficulties in performing motor tasks. Recently, a
cognitive learning paradigm has been applied to studying the nature of the problems
experienced by children with DCD, which assumes that these children have fewer cognitive
and metacognitive skills with which to acquire motor skills. However, despite the emergence of
such cognitive models, individual differences in childrens use of self-regulatory and
metacognitive skill during motor learning have received little research attention. The aim of
this review article was to examine the roots of this emerging field of research, locate it within
the larger body of metacognitive and self-regulation literature, and examine some of the
preliminary work that has been conducted on the role of self-regulation and metacognition in
motor learning and in the motor performance difficulties of children with DCD.
Keywords Developmental coordination disorder . Self-regulation . Metacognition
Children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) perform motor skills in a clumsy,
awkward, effortful, or unskillful manner (Polatajko 1999). They are slow to learn fundamental
motor skills such as running and hopping and experience difficulty in tasks such as dressing,
handwriting, and bike riding (Sugden and Wright 1998). This, in turn, negatively impacts on
the participation of children with DCD in everyday activities of childhood and contributes to
the development of secondary emotional and behavioral difficulties (Chambers et al. 2005;
Mandich et al. 2003). Recently, a cognitive learning paradigm has been applied to understand
the difficulties of children with DCD and develop appropriate interventions for addressing
their needs. Under this paradigm, research has begun to examine the role of self-regulation
C. Sangster Joki : D. Whitebread
Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
D. Whitebread
e-mail: dgw1004@cam.ac.uk
C. Sangster Joki (*)
Hrgovii 63, Zagreb 10000, Croatia
e-mail: sangsterjokic@gmail.com
76
and metacognitive competence in the difficulties experienced by children with DCD.

However, this line of investigation is still in its inception phase. The purpose of this review
was to examine the roots of this emerging field of research, locate it within the larger body of
metacognitive and self-regulation literature, and examine some of the preliminary work that
has been conducted on the role of self-regulation in motor learning and in the motor
performance difficulties of children with DCD.
What is DCD?
As is the case with many developmental disorders, defining DCD is a task that continues to
stimulate debate among clinical and research experts in the field. Issues that currently
challenge the precise definition of DCD include the diverse labels under which this
condition has previously been investigated, the heterogeneity of motor performance among
children with DCD, the high incidence of comorbidity between DCD and other
developmental disorders, and ongoing debate concerning the definition of the coordination
construct itself (Sugden 2006; Wilson 2005). However, although there exists ongoing
dispute about the ability of this term to accurately capture the variability of the movement
skill profiles of children with motor difficulties (Hands and Larkin 2001; Larkin and Rose
2005), a consensus has emerged within the research and practice community to adopt the
term developmental coordination disorder (Polatajko et al. 1995). As such, this term will be
used in the present article in the interest of consistency and clarity of topic.
Simply, DCD is a chronic condition characterized by a marked impairment in motor
coordination. Its defining characteristic is a core motor deficit, but there is a well-established
heterogeneity in the motor performance of children with DCD as well as frequent overlap with
other developmental disorders. Prevalence rates are typically estimated to be at approximately
5% of the school population with a higher incidence among boys (Sugden et al. 2008). DCD is
not a condition that is simply outgrown and, if left alone, persists into adulthood and has
many long-term socio-emotional consequences (Cousins and Smyth 2003; Polatajko 1999).
While many children learn the basic motor skills required to perform daily tasks, these
learned motor skills are often delayed and are of poor quality, are not sufficient to meet the
motoric demands of school and play, are noticeably clumsy in nature, or require an
abundance of effort (Missiuna 1999; Sugden et al. 2008). When these difficulties are left
unaddressed, children with DCD often suffer academically and develop secondary emotional
and behavioral difficulties such as poor self-confidence, difficulties with social inclusion and
peer acceptance, and decreased motivation and attention for physical activity (Chambers et al.
2005; Mandich et al. 2003; Sugden and Wright 1998). The term DCD appears in the
American Psychiatric Association (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental
Disorders (APA 2000) and the World Health Organizations (2001) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.1
While the core of the difficulties experienced by children with DCD is in motor performance,
there is also considerable incidence in which DCD is observed in conjunction with other
characteristics of learning, attention, language, and autistic disorders. In fact, estimates of
1
While there are several unresolved debates surrounding the interpretation and application of these
diagnostic criteria, they are viewed as the most suitable criteria currently available for definition, diagnosis,
and assessment purposes. The ongoing debate surrounding these criteria is concerned with issues such as the
operationalization of motor difficulties using a cut-off point on norm-referenced tests of motor competence,
the precise relationship between poor motor coordination and academic achievement, and the differential
diagnosis of DCD and other developmental disorders (Sugden 2006).
77
comorbidity range as high as 60% for the overlap between DCD and ADHD (Rasmussen and
Gillberg 2000) and between DCD and specific language impairment (Hill 1998), 55% between
DCD and reading difficulties (Kaplan et al. 1998), and 82% between DCD and social,
emotional, or behavioral difficulties (Losse et al. 1991). The presence of overlapping disorders
is an issue that remains central to research and debate in the DCD field and should be a factor
taken into consideration in any empirical or practical examination of this disorder.
Why Use a Self-regulated Learning Approach to Understanding DCD?

In recent years, self-regulated learning (SRL) has become a key competence in education
and is widely accepted to play a critical role in learning, educational achievement, and
beyond (Boekaerts and Cascallar 2006). In an extensive review of the metacognition
literature, Wang et al. (1990) concluded that metacognition was the most powerful single
predictor of learning. Similarly, Veenman et al. (2004) demonstrated that metacognitive
skillfulness is a unique contributor to learning performance beyond that which can be
accounted for by traditionally measured intelligence. This unique contribution of
metacognitive and self-regulatory ability to learning and performance outcomes has been
demonstrated across a wide range of academic areas (Whitebread and Pino Pasternak 2010).
Similarly, deficits in self-regulatory and metacognitive competence have been demonstrated
to be common among children with learning difficulties (Sugden 1989). An extensive body
of research dedicated to developing and evaluating interventions aimed at promoting
metacognitive and self-regulatory ability has also shown that such skills are readily
modifiable (Dignath et al. 2008; Hattie et al. 1996), making self-regulatory and
metacognitive competence an area ripe for educational intervention.
While the relevance of metacognitive and self-regulatory research in the academic
domain is clear, perhaps less obvious is the rationale behind grounding research examining
the motor performance difficulties of children with DCD in a self-regulated learning
paradigm. Efforts at developing an understanding of the nature of DCD have arisen from a
diverse range of theoretical and empirical perspectives. Traditionally, approaches to
understanding DCD have assumed that the performance difficulties experienced by children
with DCD reflected underlying sensorimotor dysfunction. However, these assumptions
have not been supported empirically, nor are they consistent with current theories of motor
learning (Sugden and Wright 1998; Wilson 2005). More recently, the emergence of a more
diverse range of research efforts aimed at providing potential explanations for the
movement difficulties experienced by children with DCD has highlighted the multidimensional nature of this disorder (Barnett 2008; Wilson 2005). Such approaches include
the functional analysis of childrens performance on everyday motor tasks (e.g., Bouffard et
al. 1996), the analysis of individual differences in precise movement patterns involved in
tasks such as walking or handwriting (e.g., Barnett and Henderson 2005; Wann et al. 1998),
and the examination of perceptual and other psychological processes such as motor
programming (Hill 2005), visuospatial memory (Alloway 2007), and the internal
representation of movement (Wilson et al. 2001).
As with approaches to investigating the nature of DCD, approaches toward intervention
are diverse in their theoretical and practical scope. In general, they might be classified into
two categories. The first, labeled process approaches by Sugden (2007), is a group of
interventions aiming to address the underlying processes hypothesized to contribute to the
motor performance difficulties of DCD. Such approaches concentrate on pinpointing the
sensorymotor processes assumed to be necessary for motor performance and to be those
78
with which the child with DCD is having difficulty. These process-oriented approaches
assume that, if such foundational skills can be identified and improved through
intervention, motor control will emerge and task performance will be improved (Missiuna
et al. 1997; Sugden 2007; Sugden and Wright 1998).
However, several large-scale studies evaluating process-oriented approaches, such as
sensory integration and perceptualmotor intervention, have found that the gains made in
such interventions were small or non-existent (Humphries et al. 1993; Polatajko et al. 1992;
Wilson et al. 1992). Considered together, these findings suggest a shift away from processoriented approaches and a move toward a second, more task-oriented group of intervention
approaches which aim to assist children in mastering the activities that they need to perform
in everyday contexts (Sugden 2007; Wilson 2005).
Task-oriented approaches involve concentrating on the functional tasks with which the child
is having difficulty without an emphasis on underlying processes and advocate a focus on the
characteristics of the child, task, and environment (Sugden and Chambers 2005). Within this
framework, several approaches have emerged which, through a blending of cognitive
learning and motor control theories, involve working on problem-solving strategies with
children during task performance and assisting children in becoming more aware of the
cognitive processes and strategies used to guide motor performance (Missiuna et al. 1997) as
well as the specific task and environmental demands underlying performance (Sugden and
Chambers 2005).
The Ecological Intervention approach (Henderson and Sugden 2007) is one such
approach, which emphasizes the planning and execution of movement and the use of
cognitive skills in motor performance. Similarly, the Cognitive Orientation to daily
Occupational Performance (CO-OP) (Polatajko and Mandich 2004) is an approach in which
the child is supported in developing cognitive and metacognitive strategies for use during
motor performance. It focuses on teaching children to use a four-step self-instructional
problem-solving strategy for working through performance difficulties and achieving skill
competence. This strategy, summarized by the mnemonic GOAL-PLAN-DO-CHECK
(GPDC), is used to guide the childrens problem-solving activity. By tapping self-regulatory
and metacognitive skills in goal setting, planning, self-monitoring, and evaluation, it
encourages the child to consciously reflect on performance and select, enact, evaluate, and
adapt performance strategies.
Many of the cognitively based mediative techniques used in CO-OP are derived from
the work of Feuerstein et al. (1980) and are captured in the CO-OP approach through a
process called guided discovery. Using questioning, guiding, and coaching techniques, the
child is instructed in the use of the GPDC framework and guided to discover task-specific
strategies for solving motor performance problems. Once the GPDC strategy has been
introduced, the adult and the child continue to engage in the problem-solving process in
an iterative fashion. Setting the goal facilitates discussion of a plan that will enable the
child to meet the goal. Making a plan facilitates an elaboration of the specifics of
performing the selected motor skills and the realization that there might exist several
possible plans. This realization, in turn, highlights the need to carry out, or do, the chosen
plan in order to determine whether it will be successful in achieving the goal. Finally,
carrying out the plan prompts the evaluation, or check, phase of the global strategy, which
might bring to the childs attention the need to amend, modify, or abandon the plan.
Initially, the adult adopts a leading role in the use of the GPDC strategy. Through
questioning and cueing, it is intended that the child gradually becomes more familiar with
the strategy and eventually begins to use it on his or her own. In this manner, use of the
GPDC strategy moves from a modeled, externally driven process through collaborative
79
discussion with the adult toward an independent, internally driven process directed by the
child. It has been argued that, in such an approach, children become more aware of the
implicit strategies and rules used in motor performance (Missiuna et al. 1997) and can be
taught to select and apply these strategies for working through motor performance
difficulties (Mandich et al. 2001; Sangster et al. 2005). In order to ensure that these skills
are generalized to other tasks and settings, children also need to recognize how task
knowledge is used to develop performance strategies, to be aware of their own cognitive
and self-regulatory processes, and to select, use, and evaluate the cognitive strategies used
to solve a motor performance problem (Polatajko and Mandich 2004). In other words,
children need to develop a metacognitive understanding of the role of task knowledge and
self-regulatory processes in acquiring motor skill.
The application of this new generation of intervention strategies has prompted the
hypothesis that children with DCD poorly self-regulate their own motor performance. More
specifically, they are said to have a smaller repertoire of cognitive and metacognitive
strategies from which to draw during motor performance and have difficulty learning and
applying the many strategies that most children discover, learn, and apply implicitly
through everyday movement experiences (Missiuna et al. 1997). Indeed, previous research
has demonstrated that children with DCD do not readily learn motor skills during practice
alone, as would their typically developing peers (Marchiori et al. 1987). It has been further
suggested, therefore, that children with DCD need support in developing problem-solving
and self-regulatory skills for addressing motor performance difficulties (Mandich et al.
2001). In such an approach, children become more aware of the implicit strategies and rules
used in motor performance (Missiuna et al. 1997) and can be taught to select and apply
these strategies for working through motor performance difficulties (Mandich et al. 2001;
Sangster et al. 2005).
Despite the promising potential offered by this new generation of intervention
approaches, many of these underlying assumptions have yet to be fully examined.
Arguably, this provides sufficient rationale for further examination into the role played
by self-regulation in the motor performance difficulties of children with DCD and the
manner in which self-regulated motor performance can be facilitated through
cognitively oriented intervention. In their support for the application of self-regulatory
and metacognitive frameworks to the study of DCD, Lloyd et al. (2006) stress that
further research is first necessary to gain a clearer picture of self-regulation in this
population before embarking too quickly on the development of intervention strategies
aimed at supporting self-regulated motor performance. What remains to be understood is
the precise role played by self-regulation in motor skill acquisition among children with
DCD, how this differs from the self-regulated motor performance of typically developing
children, and whether and in what way cognitively oriented intervention programs
support the development of self-regulated performance. To do so, a consideration of
current theory and knowledge from the self-regulation and metacognition literature is
necessary.
What Do We Know About Self-regulation and Metacognition?

Self-regulation (SR) has been described and investigated under a number of different
theoretical models, each applying their own definitions and labels to the constructs
proposed to comprise SR. However, despite their differences, most models are common in
their view of self-regulation as a multi-dimensional phenomenon (Pintrich 2000). In
80
general, these models view SR as the appropriate and effective use of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies for meeting the demands of specific tasks and as an organized
approach toward learning that includes goal setting and planning, monitoring, and adapting
performance and effective evaluation. In addition, self-regulated learning is characterized
by the transfer of new knowledge or skill to new contexts and an intrinsic motivational
orientation, where the individual seeks challenge, persists despite difficulties, and interprets
difficulties as opportunities for further learning (Boekaerts 1999; Pintrich 2000; Zimmerman 2002).
In the motor domain, SR research has generally been grounded within a socialcognitive
framework. This perspective will be reviewed here and additionally located within the
larger body of SR and metacognition literature.
Socialcognitive models of self-regulation
The socialcognitive view of self-regulation originates from the work of Bandura (1986,
1991), who argued that the self-regulation of performance is achieved through three
interacting functions: self-observation, self-judgment, and self-reaction. Bandura (1986,
1991) further argued that SR is additionally influenced by self-efficacy and goal-setting,
where perceived self-efficacy is an individuals judgment about his or her ability to
effectively address a challenging situation (Bandura 1991). Research conducted by Bandura
and his colleagues has demonstrated that individuals with high self-efficacy set more
challenging goals and remain more committed to them. In turn, effective goal-setting
specifies the conditions for self-evaluation and thus becomes a primary mediating factor in
the self-regulation of performance (Bandura 1991).
An extensive body of theoretical and empirical literature has arisen from this
pioneering work. As a result, definitions of SR have become increasingly inclusive and
currently recognize the interaction between knowledge, metacognition, skill, motivation,
and cognition as well as the role played by social interaction in the development of
self-regulation. Consequently, multiple models have arisen to describe, explain, and
understand SR itself (Boekaerts 1999; Butler 2002). One of the more prevalent models is
the socialcognitive model proposed by Zimmerman (2000) and Schunk (2001), which
describes SR as the process through which a learner transforms cognitive ability into taskrelated skills. Self-regulation, according to Zimmerman (2000), is a product of the
ongoing interaction between the individual, the environment, and the task and includes
self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and adapted to attain
personal goals. Zimmerman (2000) and Schunks (2001) conception of SR is cyclical,
where feedback from previous performance is used to make adjustments during current
effort.
In the forethought phase, the individual engages in processes that establish a
commitment to learning and promote self-efficacy, such as setting goals and purposeful
strategic planning. In the performance phase, the self-regulated learner uses social
comparison, feedback, and the self-verbalization of strategies to guide action, assess
progress, and maintain positive motivation and self-efficacy beliefs. In the selfreflection phase, performance is assessed via evaluative judgments that influence the
learners reaction to performance experiences. These self-reflections, in turn, influence
subsequent forethought processes and beliefs about future learning (Zimmerman 2000,
2006).
In each phase, self-regulatory processes are linked to key motivational beliefs that serve
to perpetuate the SR cycle. Motivational patterns can be ego-oriented, where the individual
81
is guided by factors extrinsic to the real purpose of the task and sets outcome goals, or taskoriented, where learning is based on intrinsic interest and a focus on the meaning of the task
(Dweck 1986, 1991). The former approach, where motivational control is externally
located, typically contributes to minimal investment in learning, low self-satisfaction levels,
and limited effort during performance. In contrast, the task-oriented approach is associated
with an internal motivational pattern characterized by an intrinsic interest in the task itself
and a mastery goal orientation. This orientation, in turn, supports persistence and challenge
seeking during learning.
Schunk (2001) and Zimmermans (2000) model also recognizes how learning occurs
through both self-directed practice and external guidance, thus recognizing the social nature
of learning. In this model, the acquisition of new skills proceeds through four sequential
levels of learning. First, during observation and emulation phases, information about a
specific skill and how it should be performed is obtained through the observation of another
persons actions and through efforts to imitate the modeled performance (Kitsantas et al.
2000). Later, at self-control and self-regulation levels, self-directed practice enables the
individual to achieve a certain degree of automaticity in performance and to adapt their own
performance to changes in internal and external conditions (Kitsantas et al. 2000). This
sequential view of SR, also described as a social-to-self progression of self-regulatory
development (Martin 2004), argues that childrens skill acquisition is supported by the
modeling, instruction, monitoring, and guidance activities of teachers, parents, or peers
within the social milieu of family, school, or community in addition to the self-regulation of
practice (Zimmerman 2006).
Self-regulation and metacognition
Zimmerman (2000) and Schunks (2001) description of the various sub-processes involved
in self-regulation can be generally divided into two categories: the self-regulatory skills
necessary for independently and effectively directing ones own learning and the processes
involved in sustaining motivational control. But where might the construct of metacognition fit into this model? Despite an extensive body of SR and metacognition literature,
confusion concerning the definition of these constructs and the relationship between them
persists. In general, however, the emerging consensus among researchers is for the
conceptualization of metacognition as the monitoring and regulation of cognition
specifically, while self-regulation refers to the monitoring and control of all human mental
functions, including emotional, social, and motivational elements (Whitebread and Pino
Pasternak 2010). This distinction is a reflection of the growing recognition that, while
metacognitive ability is a crucial contributor to a learners effectiveness (Veenman and
Spaans 2005), behavior and performance in learning tasks are also highly dependent on the
motivational attitudes and emotional beliefs held by the learner (Pekrun et al. 2002; Pintrich
and De Groot 1990) as well as the social processes involved in the development of
metacognitive and SR ability (McCaslin and Hickey 2001).
Simply, metacognition is what one knows about ones own cognitive activity and how
this knowledge is used to regulate cognitive activity during learning. It has been
traditionally described as being comprised of metacognitive experience, or the on-line
monitoring and reflection upon mental processes; metacognitive control, or the regulation
of mental processes; and metacognitive knowledge (Brown 1987; Flavell 1979). The first
two elements of this model might be likened to the self-regulatory skills discussed
previously and include any activity aimed at regulating performance in order to achieve
specific goals, such as planning, self-monitoring, the use of performance strategies, and
82
self-evaluation (Kluwe 1987; Pintrich 2000; Pintrich et al. 2000; Siegler 1996).
Metacognitive knowledge is the knowledge of ones own cognitive processes, abilities,
and learning strategies (Flavell 1985); it can be about person, task, and strategy variables
and can be declarative, procedural, or conditional (Pintrich et al. 2000).
The distinction between metacognitive knowledge and processes of metacognitive
control is of particular relevance to the study of metacognition in children and reflects an
area of historical and current debate. Until recently, much of the metacognition literature
has made the assumption that metacognition was a conscious, stateable ability, where
knowledge and the results of self-monitoring needed to be able to be articulated in order to
be considered metacognitive. However, it has been more recently argued that some
processes involved in metacognitive control might not always be available to consciousness
or stored as articulated knowledge. This argument has prompted a shift in assumptions and
a more inclusive conceptualization of metacognition (Whitebread and Pino Pasternak
2010), which argues that both conscious and implicit forms of learning in relation to
metacognitive processes need to be acknowledged in order to obtain a fuller understanding
of metacognition and the manner in which it develops in children. This new
conceptualization of metacognition has prompted a wealth of research examining the
relationship between conscious and performance-based, metacognitive processes (e.g.,
Siegler and Shrager 1984; Siegler and Shipley 1995) and the manner in which these
processes develop (De Loache and Brown 1987; Pressley et al. 1985; Schneider 1985;
Schneider and Bjorklund 1998; Whitebread et al. 2007a, b).
Undoubtedly, the relationship between self-regulated performance, metacognitive
competence, and a learners knowledge is a highly dynamic and multi-dimensional one.
While the present review does not allow for a full discussion of this topic, it is an area of
ongoing interest in the authors own research (e.g., Sangster 2009; Whitebread et al. 2007)
and certainly one to which further discussion and investigation should be dedicated. These
ideas are similarly relevant and further supported by recent empirical research, to be
reviewed below, examining SR and metacognition in the motor domain. This expanded
conceptualization of metacognition also carries certain methodological implications, which
will also be reviewed in an upcoming section. However, because the current article
considers the role of self-regulation among children with motor learning difficulties, the
existing literature examining individual SR differences among children with other forms of
learning difficulties, as well as current approaches to addressing the SR difficulties of these
children, will first be briefly reviewed.
Individual differences and intervention approaches in self-regulation
Until very recently, investigations into how children of varying abilities use self-regulatory
and metacognitive skills have been focused primarily in academic domains such as reading,
writing, physics, and mathematics. In their review of research into ability-related
differences in both academic and psychomotor domains, Martini and Shore (2008)
demonstrate several cross-domain similarities in the manner in which metacognition and
self-regulatory skill is used by children of different abilities. As such, they argue that a
consideration of research in the academic domain is of relevance to any study investigating
these phenomena in the motor domain. The researchers distinguish three areas in which SR
and metacognitive differences have been examined: task knowledge, strategy knowledge,
and metacognitive skillfulness.
In the area of task knowledge, children with learning difficulties have been demonstrated
to possess less domain-specific and general knowledge as compared with their typically
83
developing peers and are more likely to focus on irrelevant information during academic
problem-solving tasks (Paris and Winograd 1990; Wong 1985). These ability-related
differences seem similarly true for strategy knowledge, which includes knowledge about
strategies appropriate for successfully performing a specific task and the conditions in
which they are appropriate, and the ability to use this knowledge to accurately identify a
task problem and set a task goal. Here, children with learning difficulties have been shown
to more often use strategies inappropriately and inefficiently during problem-solving and
have difficulty identifying the problem in the first instance (Borkowski et al. 1989;
Montague 1991; Wong 1985).
Research has also described differences in the metacognitive skillfulness of children of
varying academic ability. In general, students with learning difficulties are less likely to
spontaneously monitor performance, have difficulty with planning activities, and
demonstrate less efficient, accurate, and appropriate use of strategies (Davidson and
Sternberg 1998; Montague 1992; Wong 1985). These difficulties have been linked to the
lower levels of domain-specific and general problem-solving knowledge of children with
learning difficulties, which has been argued to contribute to difficulties in appropriately
selecting and applying strategies and accurately monitoring and evaluating performance
(Martini and Shore 2008).
On the whole, SR and metacognition research in the academic domain has provided
clear and consistent evidence to suggest that children with learning difficulties possess less
developed repertoires of task and metacognitive knowledge and are generally less able to
use such knowledge to appropriately self-regulate academic problem-solving tasks. In
addition, children with learning disabilities have been demonstrated to experience difficulty
with motivational aspects of self-regulatory control, often holding maladaptive beliefs and
self-doubts and exhibiting reduced levels of engagement during learning (Graham and
Harris 2003). Arguably, these deficiencies in SR and metacognitive skillfulness are a
critical contributing factor to the academic difficulties demonstrated by children with
learning difficulties. Indeed, metacognitive and self-regulatory deficits have been generally
found to be a key difficulty for children with learning difficulties (Sugden 1989). As a
result of this research, there have been similarly extensive efforts aimed at developing and
evaluating interventions for promoting SR and metacognitive ability. These intervention
approaches have been applied across a number of curriculum areas and, on the whole, aim
to make children more aware of how metacognitive and self-regulatory strategies influence
learning and performance by making them explicit and encouraging children to reflect upon
and talk about their own learning.
As previously mentioned, reviews of such intervention efforts have suggested that SR
ability can be readily modified (Dignath et al. 2008; Hattie et al. 1996). For example,
research has indicated that students can learn to apply a self-regulatory approach toward
reading that involves the use of strategies for making reading meaningful and monitoring
understanding of text (Pressley and Afflerbach 1995; Pressley and Gaskin 2006). In
mathematics, students performance in mathematical problem-solving has been shown to
improve after being instructed in the development of strategies and a self-regulated
approach (Schoenfeld 1992).
Even more promisingly, intervention research has demonstrated that children of varying
academic abilities can all benefit from interventions aimed at promoting SR competence
(Fuchs et al. 2003; Verschaffel et al. 1999). Interventions focused on developing
metacognitive skillfulness among children with learning disabilities, which generally
encourage children to adopt an active role in learning by asking questions and generating
strategies, have been demonstrated to be effective across a number of academic domains,
84
including reading, writing, and mathematics (e.g., Maccini and Hughes 2000; Montague
2001; Page-Voth and Graham 1999). For example, the self-regulated strategy development
approach (Harris and Graham 1996), which aims to improve childrens strategic behavior,
SR skill, content knowledge, and motivational control by teaching them how to use goal
setting, self-monitoring, self-instruction, and self-reinforcement strategies to regulate their
own learning during academic tasks, has been demonstrated to be an effective approach for
improving academic task performance of children with learning disabilities (Graham and
Harris 2003). Arguably, the promising results provided by these approaches provides
positive support for the use of similar approaches aimed at promoting self-regulated motor
skill acquisition among children with motor learning difficulties such as DCD.
Methodological and Conceptual Considerations

The arguments made in previous sections have clear methodological implications for the
manner through which metacognition and self-regulation should be investigated. Traditionally,
research into metacognition has placed an emphasis on the use of self-report techniques as a
method for understanding individual metacognitive processes (Winne and Perry 2000). This
approach, which depends on the individuals ability to provide a reliable report of his or her
own cognitive processes, is consistent with models that view metacognition as a stateable and
conscious process. However, the previous discussion has demonstrated that there is evidence
to suggest that a significant proportion of metacognitive processes are not available to such
conscious awareness, particularly in young children. This has prompted increasing support
for the use of a multi-method approach for investigating metacognition and self-regulation,
where prospective or retrospective self-reports are examined alongside the concurrent
observation of metacognitive and SR performance in a learning situation (Veenman 2005;
Winne and Perry 2000). The observation of metacognitive ability and self-regulatory skill
during performance has the potential to provide additional insight into childrens SR
competence, their domain-specific and metacognitive knowledge, and the manner in which
this knowledge is applied to performance. This becomes particularly important when
investigating SR and metacognition among children, where observational data record what
children actually do in the context of performance without relying on the verbal ability of the
child (Winne and Perry 2000). In addition, the observation of behavior in naturalistic settings
permits the exploration of self-regulation in a social context that is consistent with social
cognitive models of SR (Perry 1998; Winne and Perry 2000).
This final point also raises the important issue of the context in which SR and metacognition
are investigated. Researchers in the field have increasingly argued for the investigation of
childrens thinking and learning in the context of a meaningful and socially mediated activity.
Such an activity, including its physical and social context and the mediative roles held by those
involved, becomes the context that supports or constrains thought processes and cognitive
change (Forman and McPhail 1996). This idea is supported in the SR literature by Perry
(2002), who argues that, for research to be ecologically valid and practically relevant, it needs
to attend to the role of context in shaping cognitive development, to be conducted in
naturalistic settings, and to reflect individuals acting within social and cultural contexts.
These arguments are also consistent with the conceptual foundations of contemporary
approaches to examining SR, metacognition, and motor learning. In recent years, with a
growing recognition of the environmental, social, and cultural influences on childrens
learning and development, the paradigmatic underpinnings of these fields of research have
begun to lean toward a more holistic approach, where the focus lies not only on the
85
individual differences or capacities of a child but also in developing a better understanding

of the greater contextual, social, and cultural frameworks in which thinking, learning, and
developmental processes occur (Henderson and Sugden 2007; Sugden 2006; Winne and
Perry 2000; Veenman 2005). Such approaches argue that, in order to reach ecologically
valid conclusions about the role of SR in motor performance, a new framework
encompassing the social and cultural influences on both SR and motor development is
necessary. Using conceptual perspectives from socio-cultural (Vygotsky 1962) and ecodevelopmental (Bronfenbrenner 1977) theories, SR, metacognitive, and motor learning
research has increasingly emphasized the interaction between the skill of the child in
performing functional and meaningful tasks, the environmental context of the childs
family, school, and community, and the social and cultural affordances offered by this
context (Butler 2002; Polatajko and Mandich 2004; Sugden 2007; Thomas 2002).
Studying SR and Metacognition in the Motor Domain

Over the past decades, there have been numerous calls for the application of SR and
metacognition models to research in the motor domain (Ferrari 1996; Newell and Barclay
1982) and in motor development specifically (Wall et al. 1985). In 1982, Newell and
Barclay argued for an increased emphasis on the mechanisms through which strategy use,
knowledge, and metacognition affect motor performance. Flavell (1987) similarly stated
that metacognition should be considered in any task involving cognitive abilities, including
motor skills. Ericsson and Charness (1994) emphasized the relevance of self-regulation in
the acquisition of motor skill, where deliberate practice that is self-planned, self-initiated,
and self-sustained is critical to the mastery of a motor skill.
However, despite the widespread recognition that cognitive and metacognitive skills
influence complex motor behavior and motor learning, the existing body of research into
the self-regulation of motor performance is limited. In addition, there exists limited
empirical investigation aimed at exploring these phenomena in the context of actual motor
performance and explaining the processes through which SR skills are acquired and used by
children with and without motor difficulties (Martini et al. 2004). In fact, discussions of
self-regulation in the context of motor performance have been limited primarily to the field
of sport psychology and to investigations into the differences between expert and novice
performers in particular (Ferrari et al. 1991; Zimmerman, 2006).
Ferrari (1996) defines self-regulation, as it relates to motor development, as actions
occurring during the actual performance of a task that allow an individual to control,
govern, or direct his own activity through self-imposed rules or regulations that better adapt
his performance to different circumstances or surroundings (p. 213). Metacognition in the
motor domain has been defined as the knowledge of ones own psychological, social, and
physical behaviors and abilities and the task and situational variables affecting task
performance, acquired through purposeful interactions with the environment (Newell and
Barclay 1982). Here, metacognition has been considered as both a mediator of action and a
tool through which motor skills are learned (Luke and Hardy 1999; Missiuna et al. 1997).
Perhaps the most comprehensive early model for motoric self-regulation was that developed
by Kirschenbaum (1984), who viewed self-regulation as an interaction between cognition,
affect (including motivation), physiology, and environment. He proposed five stages
necessary for effective self-regulation: problem identification, commitment, execution,
environment, and generalization. While Kirschenbaums (1984) model is admirable in its
pioneering efforts at modeling the self-regulation of motor skill, it is not without its
86
limitations, including its failure to elaborate on the specific strategies used in motor learning
and how situational variables, such as perceived self-efficacy, may influence performance
(Ferrari 1996). Consequently, Ferrari (1996) suggests that the examination of self-regulation
during motor performance might be better achieved using the socialcognitive theories of
SR presented previously. Although these theories were primarily developed to examine the
self-regulation of cognitive skill, the knowledge derived from these models has been argued
to have the potential to similarly provide insight into the self-regulation of motor skill
(Ferrari 1996; Newell 1991).
While the application of a self-regulatory approach to studying motor learning
demonstrates considerable potential in further understanding motor skill acquisition, there
are currently very few empirical studies examining the role of self-regulatory competence
and metacognitive knowledge in motor performance (Ferrari 1996) and among children
with differing motor abilities in particular (Martini et al. 2004). Where it exists, such
research has generally focused on examining individual differences in SR competence as it
relates to the development of motor expertise. However, a consideration of this body of
work is relevant to understanding the motor performance difficulties of children with DCD
when engaged in everyday motor activities of childhood such as team sports, bicycle riding,
and managing classroom tools. If the argument that these differences arise in part due to
deficient self-regulatory control is accepted, then knowledge derived from research
examining the manner in which novice and expert motor performers self-direct performance
and learning can be used to better understand the difficulties of children with DCD and how
one might apply self-regulatory approaches to enabling successful motor performance. A
review of this work will be presented next, followed by a more careful consideration of
research examining self-regulation among children with DCD.
Studying SR in expertise
According to Ericsson (2003), to possess expertise is to have mastered a series of
increasingly difficult task challenges in a specific area of functioning. Indeed, to possess
expertise requires highly complex repertoires of task specific knowledge and performance
skill. This knowledge and skill arise from the intense and deliberate practice that experts
dedicate to their task, a form of practice that requires high levels of self-regulatory
competence (Kitsantas and Zimmerman 2002; Zimmerman 2006). Arguably, therefore, selfregulatory competence is critical to the development of expertise and is an area worthy of
research attention. Kitsantas and Zimmerman (1998) propose that the self-regulation of
expert motor performance can be most effectively studied using the cyclical model
described previously, where strategic SR skill and positive motivational patterns need to act
cooperatively in order to effectively self-direct motor practice. Using this model,
Zimmerman and others have conducted research aimed at describing the self-regulatory
differences between expert and novice motor performers during each of the three phases of
Zimmermans (2000) model. In these studies, the researchers compared groups of expert,
non-expert, and novice performers in motor activities such as basketball and volleyball.
Experts and non-experts were defined as players with a similar or equal number of years of
experience, but differing performance levels in which experts demonstrated significantly
higher levels of performance proficiency than non-experts.2 Novices, in contrast, were
performers who did not participate in the specified sport as an organized activity but had
2
For example, in Kitsantas and Zimmermans (2002) study, experts were selected from a varsity volleyball
team, while non-experts were recruited from the universitys recreational volleyball club.
87
played it informally. On the whole, experts have been demonstrated to focus proactively on
learning and practice during the forethought and performance phases of SR, while novices
are more likely to focus reactively on performance outcomes during self-reflection (Cleary
and Zimmerman 2001). The findings from these studies have provided substantial evidence
for the interacting relationship between motor performance level, SR competence, and
motivational behavior and will be summarized in the following paragraphs.
Zimmerman and his colleagues demonstrated that, in the forethought phase, experts held
significantly higher ratings of self-efficacy, intrinsic interest, and self-satisfaction than nonexperts and novices (Cleary and Zimmerman 2001; Kitsantas and Zimmerman 2002). In
addition, these self-motivation factors were shown to interact with task analysis skills,
where learners with high self-efficacy beliefs set higher, more process-oriented goals and
were more committed to these goals. Kitsantas and Zimmerman (2002) further
demonstrated that experts were more focused on specific task techniques and were more
likely to develop and follow highly structured practice routines than non-experts or novices.
The researchers argue that the tendency among non-experts and novices to set outcomeoriented goals alone diminishes not only performance effectiveness but also subsequent
motivation (Kitsantas and Zimmerman 2002; Zimmerman 2006).
During performance, experts advantageous goals, plans, and motivational beliefs from the
forethought phase have been shown to contribute to the conscious implementation of plans,
more frequent use of technique-specific strategies, and more frequent and more selective selfmonitoring of such technique (Kitsantas and Zimmerman 2002; Zimmerman 2006). When
forethought processes were superficial or inaccurate, as was the case for many novice
performers, efforts to control performance were often ineffective and more likely focused on
performance outcomes (Zimmerman 2006). As a result, following failed performance, selfefficacy ratings among novices were most prone to decline (Kitsantas and Zimmerman 2002).
During self-reflection, novice performers have been shown to adopt more fixed attribution
patterns, attributing errors to lack of ability, task difficulty, or bad luck (Cleary and Zimmerman
2001; Kitsantas and Zimmerman 2002). This attribution pattern contributes to an increased
likelihood for defensive inferences, such as task avoidance and apathy (Kitsantas and
Zimmerman 2002). In contrast, experts are more likely to objectively self-evaluate
performance and attribute performance outcomes to the specific techniques developed,
implemented, and monitored in previous phases. As a result, they are better able to sustain
self-satisfaction and more readily adjust technique or strategy use or seek help with repeated
errors (Cleary and Zimmerman 2001; Kitsantas and Zimmerman 2002).
The work summarized in the previous paragraphs provides support for the cyclical model of
SR and for the manner in which self-regulatory competence, performance level, and
motivational patterns interact, as is hypothesized by the socialcognitive models reviewed
earlier (Kitsantas and Zimmerman 2002). In addition, it provides substantial evidence to
suggest that SR plays a critical role in the development of motor competence. Expertise
research has similarly considered the role of knowledge in motor performance, where, using a
knowledge-based approach, research has aimed to determine whether experts differ in what
they know and how they use declarative, procedural, metacognitive, and strategic knowledge
(Anderson 1982; Chi 1981). Through such research, the knowledge possessed by experts has
been shown to be more extensive, more complete, and more elaborate for their particular area
of expertise (Anderson 1982; Chi 1981). Experts have been demonstrated to possess more
sophisticated knowledge of salient task and environmental characteristics relevant to
performance, be more aware of the consequences of their movement, make decisions more
appropriate to the demands of a given situation, and be more adept at evaluating the quality
of movement (Wrisberg 2001). Experts richer, more interconnected repertoire of knowledge
88
has similarly been demonstrated to positively influence the problem-solving ability of expert
performers (McPherson and Thomas 1989). These findings suggest that not only is expert
knowledge richer in both abstract and functional concepts but also it additionally contains
procedures for applying this knowledge and the conditions that affect its use (Ferrari 1996).
In other words, their repertoire is richer in both declarative and procedural forms of
knowledge. As a consequence, experts are better able to monitor and assess their learning in a
particular task and, as such, generate more metacognitive knowledge in their domain of
expertise (Ferrari 1996). Again, the interacting relationship between knowledge and selfregulatory skill presented in the previous discussion of SR theory seems supported by this
research in the motor domain.
This relationship is further illustrated by results from the previously mentioned
studies examining self-regulatory differences among expert and novice basketball
(Cleary and Zimmerman 2001) and volleyball (Kitsantas and Zimmerman 2002) players.
In both studies, experienced experts and non-experts demonstrated identical amounts of
general skill knowledge, while only the former group used this knowledge in a selfregulated manner during actual practice. Novice participants demonstrated significantly
less knowledge than the other two groups. These findings are noteworthy for two
reasons. First, the differences in knowledge between experienced (experts and nonexperts) and novice performers further points to a relationship between performance level
and amount of knowledge. However, the similar levels of knowledge held by experts and
non-experts also indicate that knowledge alone cannot account for performance
differences among learners of similar experience and that the performer must additionally
possess the skill to effectively apply this knowledge to performance in a self-regulated
manner. On the basis of these findings, Kitsantas and Zimmerman (2002) conclude that
the quality of self-regulation exhibited during performance is more highly predictive of
performance success than knowledge of relevant task information or amount of practice
experience.
Overall, the existing expertise literature is consistent with current SR perspectives by
emphasizing the complex relationship between knowledge and SR competence, where
competent self-regulation is dependent on a certain level of task and metacognitive
knowledge which, in turn, grows in both breadth and depth as a result of self-regulated
performance in a particular domain.
Studying individual SR differences
The results presented in the previous section demonstrating the SRperformance
relationship in the expertise population parallels that from research in the academic domain
demonstrating higher levels of SR and metacognitive competence among gifted children (e.
g., Montague 1992; Pressley et al. 1985). In their review of ability-related differences
among performers in academic and psychomotor domains, Martini and Shore (2008)
demonstrate how SR and metacognition research in the academic domain has provided
clear and consistent evidence to suggest that high academic performers generally possess
more domain-specific and general metacognitive knowledge and are more able to use this
knowledge to effectively and efficiently self-regulate academic performance than children
experiencing difficulties in learning (e.g., Davidson and Sternberg 1998). As was reviewed
earlier, children with learning difficulties have been shown to possess less developed
repertoires of task and metacognitive knowledge and are generally less able to use such
knowledge to appropriately self-regulate academic problem-solving tasks (e.g. Borkowski
et al. 1989; Wong 1985).
89
Based on the research presented in this and the previous section, it seems reasonable to argue
that SR competence is strongly related to high levels of performance in both academic (among
gifted children) and psychomotor (among experts) domains. It might further be postulated that
SR difficulties exhibited by children with academic learning difficulties might also play a role
in the motor performance difficulties of children with DCD. In their review, Martini and Shore
(2008) present findings from an emerging body of research examining SR and metacognition
among children of differing psychomotor ability that provides support for a relationship
between motor performance and self-regulatory and metacognitive competence. In the
following section, this emerging body of research will be examined more fully.
Studying SR Among Children with DCD

Research examining the role of SR in the motor difficulties of children with DCD stems in
part from an early knowledge-based model of motor development proposed by Wall et al.
(1985), who argued that knowledge about action could be declarative, procedural, or
affective. Walls model included two further components involved in the metacognitive
control of movement development: metacognitive knowledge, or a persons awareness of
procedural, declarative and affective knowledge about action, and metacognitive skill, or
the use of metacognitive knowledge about action (Wall et al. 1985, p.32).
Using this framework for the investigation of differences in metacognition and SR
among children with and without DCD, recent research has begun to shed light on the selfregulatory characteristics of children with DCD. In general, children with motor difficulties
have been demonstrated to possess less detailed and interconnected knowledge about motor
tasks, to focus on irrelevant information when identifying and addressing performance
problems, to often select inappropriate performance strategies, and to be less likely to
spontaneously plan, monitor, and evaluate their performance (Martini & Shore 2008).
These differences will be considered in more detail through a consideration of two recent
studies that used a think-aloud methodology to observe and compare metacognitive and
self-regulatory behavior of children with and without DCD.
In the first study, Martini et al. (2004) observed the metacognitive processes underlying
motor performance of children engaged in a ball toss task. While no information other than
direct task instructions was provided, children were cued to keep talking if on-task
verbalizations ceased. On the whole, Martini et al. (2004) found that, while both groups of
children exhibited similar amounts of cognitive and metacognitive verbalizations during
practice of a novel motor task, the quality of these verbalizations was different. Namely,
among children with DCD, there were significantly more frequent verbalizations of
inappropriate statements related to planning and evaluation activities, where inappropriate
statements were those that were inaccurate in their observation or were irrelevant to task
performance.3 The researchers argued that ineffective planning and self-evaluation were
indicative of a limited repertoire of relevant task knowledge, where children with DCD did
not understand the task expectations nor possessed adequate procedural knowledge for
carrying out the task. As a result, they were unable to organize and implement successful task
Examples of such verbalizations included planning statements such as I need to throw the ball softer next
time following a trial in which a tossed ball failed to reach the target because it was not thrown far enough
(Martini et al., 2004) and This time my knees aren't going to be bent following trials in which a hockey
shot was repeatedly missed (Lloyd et al., 2006). This latter quote is illustrative of an inaccurate
representation of performance because bent knees are part of a mature shooting pattern and, as such, were
not hindering performance.
90
strategies nor to appropriately identify specific task factors relevant to performance outcomes
(Martini et al. 2004).
This difference in SR quality was similarly demonstrated by Lloyd et al. (2006), who applied
a think-aloud methodology for observing childrens verbalizations during a hockey-shot task.
Here, children were prompted to verbalize thoughts during performance using two statements:
keep talking and what are you thinking? Once again, the authors found that verbalized
planning and evaluative statements among children with DCD, although equal in their
frequency to those of their typically-developing peers, were less specific and more frequently
representative of inaccurate knowledge about task parameters (Lloyd et al. 2006). They argued
that the failure to provide accurate verbalizations such as that observed among typically
developing children is indicative of a failure in integrating the knowledge, monitoring, and
planning elements of the self-regulation of motor performance. Both studies additionally
found that children with DCD were observed to make more frequent affective verbalizations
and that these verbalizations were more commonly negative.4 Martini et al. (2004) linked this
to a cycle in which repeated performance failure contributes to reduced feelings of selfefficacy and self-motivation and a potential for future avoidance of physical activity.
The findings from both studies are consistent with those previously presented from other
areas of investigation (Zimmerman 2006). Namely, there seems to be a clear relationship
between SR competence (including self-regulatory skill and motivational regulation) and
success in motor performance, where SR performance among children with DCD is less
effective, and motivational behavior is more frequently negative than that of children without
any difficulties. This relationship seems additionally influenced by the amount of knowledge
possessed by the performer. However, it must be remembered that the possession of task and
metacognitive knowledge alone is not sufficient for effective skill acquisition, but must be
applied to actual performance through metacognitive, or self-regulatory, skill (Martini and
Shore 2008). In other words, while the child might know what strategies to use and in which
conditions to use them, this knowledge will not be useful unless it is appropriately applied
during performance. Once again, these studies highlight the complexity of the interaction
between these variables in influencing self-regulated performance.
The role of self-regulatory and metacognitive skill in understanding the difficulties of
children with DCD has also been examined in the context of the cognitively oriented CO-OP
intervention program described previously (Polatajko and Mandich 2004). Here, it is assumed
that participation in the program assists children to develop skills in effectively setting
performance goals, selecting and applying appropriate strategies to motor task practice, and
accurately monitoring and evaluating their own performance. While the previous studies have
provided early evidence of SR differences among children with and without DCD, the
examination of SR competence in the context of the CO-OP program additionally allows for
a consideration of the manner in which SR competence evolves through participation in a
cognitively oriented intervention.
Using Zimmerman (2000) and Schunks (2001) social-cognitive model of SR, Sangster
(2009) (hereafter referred to as the 2009 study) used an in-depth observational approach to
record, analyze, and compare self-regulatory behavior among children with and without
DCD participating in the CO-OP program, as it was exhibited through verbally articulated
4
While affective verbalizations in both groups included positive (WAHOO! I got it in! Im happy now!)
and negative (No good. Oh well, Im not good at hockey, and ...I had a really bad shot this time)
statements, Lloyd et al. (2006) noted that those from children with DCD tended to express more excitement
or surprise following performance success and to be more highly self-critical during periods of performance
difficulty.
91
task and metacognitive knowledge, performed self-regulatory skill and motivational

behavior. Children with and without motor difficulties were recruited from schools with
the help of their classroom teachers. The identification of suitable participants was carried
out through classroom observation, teacher and/or parent interview, and a formal
assessment of motor skills. Twenty children, aged between 7 and 9 years, participated in
a series of 10 individual and paired sessions with the first author. These sessions, structured
according to the previously described CO-OP program (Polatajko and Mandich 2004), took
place on a twice-weekly basis at school, lasted approximately 30 min, and were videotaped
to allow for retrospective analysis. In the initial session, children were given an opportunity
to select the task for motor practice during all future sessions. Tasks included a diverse
range of fine and gross motor activities including bicycle riding, dribbling a basketball,
handwriting, and tying shoes. This task self-selection ensured that all children were
practicing a task at which they were motivated to improve and in which they experienced
some form of performance difficulty. All subsequent sessions followed a standard format,
beginning with a brief review of the previous sessions activities followed by active
engagement in motor task practice using the CO-OP protocol. In the analysis phase, this
study applied both quantitative and qualitative techniques in order to examine group
differences and conduct an individualized examination into the nature of SR performance
among children with DCD, the manner in which such performance evolved over the course
of the intervention program and the role played by social mediation in this process.
This study demonstrated that, before participating in the program, children with DCD
demonstrated lower self-regulatory competence during motor performance than their
typically developing peers. More specifically, children with DCD less frequently performed
SR skills such as goal setting, planning, or self-monitoring and more often exhibited
ineffective forms of such behavior, such as setting an inappropriate goal, failing to
accurately monitor performance, and making inappropriate performance attributions.
Children with DCD also reported less task and metacognitive knowledge and were more
likely to exhibit negative patterns of motivational behavior than their typically developing
peers (Sangster 2009).5 Together with findings from previous research (Lloyd et al. 2006;
Martini et al. 2004), these results support the argument that the self-regulatory difficulties
of children with DCD impact upon the manner in which they approach motor learning tasks
and the success they have in acquiring motor skills.
An examination of the manner in which SR competence evolved among children with DCD
over the course of the intervention also revealed that, among those children whose task
performance improved, self-regulatory performance similarly improved. This improvement
was evidenced through increasingly independent SR skill, decreasing rates of ineffective forms
of self-regulation and the performance of a greater diversity of SR skills. This result is
supported by those from an earlier study examining the impact of CO-OP on childrens
generation of cognitive strategies for motor task practice, which demonstrated that children
participating in CO-OP generated significantly more strategies following intervention than
those participating in more traditional occupational therapy interventions (Sangster et al. 2005).
In addition, the strategies selected by CO-OP participants were of a different quality, focusing
more frequently on precise movement techniques and specific aspects of the task or practice
environment. In the 2009 study, children whose motor performance improved also generally
demonstrated higher rates of expressed knowledge and more stable and positive motivational
5
Examples of negative motivational behaviour exhibited by participants included task avoidance, failing to
persist in the face of challenge, failure to maintain attention to the task, and making statements indicative of
negative feelings of self-confidence or low self-efficacy.
92
behavior than their peers for whom motor performance remained relatively unchanged. In
contrast, the stability of motor performance in this latter group was mirrored by relatively
unchanging patterns of SR performance and more frequently negative motivational behavior.
The application of both observational and self-report methods in the 2009 study additionally
allowed for an examination of the manner in which SR performance and articulated knowledge
interact during motor skill acquisition. Based on the finding that children with DCD articulate less
knowledge and more often exhibit ineffective SR behavior than their typically developing peers,
Sangster (2009) argued that children with DCD have smaller and less complex repertoires of
knowledge about motor tasks and, as a result, have limited knowledge bases from which to
draw during self-regulated motor performance, an argument supported by previous theoretical
and empirical work (Martini and Shore 2008; Wall et al. 1985). However, individual case
analysis of children's performed and articulated behavior revealed that some children were able
to express a wealth of knowledge relevant to their chosen task, but subsequently failed to
demonstrate evidence for the successful application of this knowledge to practice. Conversely,
in several cases, children were observed to exhibit on-task self-regulatory skill but failed to
explicitly report an awareness and understanding of such ability during reflective discussion
(Sangster 2009).
Arguably, these findings suggest that, rather than conceptualizing the knowledgeskill
relationship as a unidirectional one in which self-regulatory performance requires a
prerequisite knowledge base, it instead might be better characterized as a mutually
reciprocal cycle in which effective SR performance requires a certain level of pre-existing
knowledge and competent SR performance similarly contributes to the development of new
knowledge. Among children with DCD, this relationship might most accurately be
characterized by a dissociation, where the ability to articulate domain knowledge was not
consistently associated with effective SR performance and the on-task performance of SR
skill was often not explicitly reported. This is consistent with the literature suggesting that,
in early phases of SR and metacognitive development, the knowledgeskill relationship is
often not fully established (Schneider & Bjorklund 1998; Whitebread and Pino Pasternak
2010). Arguably, in typical development, this relationship is gradually strengthened as
children learn to apply knowledge effectively to new learning situations in a self-regulated
manner and use SR learning experiences to develop new knowledge (Pressley et al. 1985).
Sangster (2009) argues that children with DCD do not automatically engage in this process,
and, as a result, the development of both knowledge and self-regulatory skill is limited.
Promisingly, the findings from the 2009 study also suggest that, over the course of the
intervention program, there was a growing connection between knowledge and skill in
some cases, where existing and new knowledge was successfully applied to newly
developed SR skill which, in turn, contributed to further understanding and the expression
of new knowledge (Sangster 2009). Arguably, therefore, one of the methods through which
the CO-OP intervention program addresses the motor performance difficulties of children
with DCD is by facilitating the development of a stronger link between childrens existing
knowledge and newly learnt SR skill by demonstrating to children the manner in which task
knowledge can be applied to activities such as goal setting, monitoring, and self-evaluation
and the manner in which these activities prompt the discovery of new knowledge.
Conclusions
This article has aimed to provide a review of current research from the fields of selfregulation, metacognition, and motor learning that supports the argument that the
93
examination of self-regulation and metacognitive competence is a promising area for

further understanding the difficulties of children with DCD. It has presented research that
suggests that children with DCD experience significant difficulty with the effective selfregulation of motor performance and that an effective method for addressing the difficulties
of these children is to support the development of self-regulatory and metacognitive
competence during motor skill acquisition.
Current knowledge from research in other domains concerning the relationships between
performance, self-regulatory competence, and motivational behavior and between SR
performance and knowledge will be useful in examining SR and metacognition among
children with motor learning difficulties. In addition, methodological implications arising
from these bodies of research will similarly apply to the investigation of self-regulated
motor performance. Namely, the use of a multi-method approach that allows for the
examination of on-line metacognitive and self-regulatory behavior in a naturalistic, socially
mediated setting promises to provide the most accurate and inclusive account of childrens
self-regulatory behavior during motor performance and to further our understanding of the
difficulties of children with DCD. It is our belief that further research exploring the role of
self-regulation in motor performance, including an examination of the relationship between
SR skill, motivational behavior, and metacognitive and domain knowledge in the context of
motor skill acquisition, will further deepen our understanding of the difficulties experienced
by children with DCD. Research examining mediation techniques most helpful in
promoting self-regulated motor performance, and whether such an approach improves
performance beyond the intervention setting, also has the potential for further developing
the most effective strategies for meeting the needs of children with DCD and their families.
Acknowledgements The impetus for this review arose as part of the doctoral research of the first author,
who would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Cambridge Commonwealth Trusts, the children,
schools, and families who participated in the research, and the invaluable critique, review, and advice of a
number of individuals at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. Special acknowledgement is
given to Prof. Helene Polatajko for her continued support and mentorship throughout this research
endeavour.
References
Alloway, T. P. (2007). Working memory, reading, and mathematical skills in children with developmental
coordination disorder. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 2036.
American Psychiatric Association. 2000. Motor skills disorder 315.40 developmental coordination disorder.
In DSM-IV-TR: Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (pp. 5355). Washington:
American Psychiatric Association.
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369406.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 248287.
Barnett, A. L. (2008). Motor assessment in developmental coordination disorder: From identification to
intervention. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 55(2), 113129.
Barnett, A. L., & Henderson, S. E. (2005). Assessment of handwriting in children with developmental
coordination disorder. In D. Sugden & M. Chambers (Eds.), children with developmental coordination
disorder (pp. 168188). London: Whurr.
Boekaerts, M., & Cascallar, E. (2006). How far have we moved toward the integration of theory and practice
in self-regulation? Educational Psychology Review, 18, 199210.
94
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational
Research, 31, 445457.
Borkowski, J. G., Estrada, M. T., Milstead, M., & Hale, C. A. (1989). General problem solving skills:
Relations between metacognition and strategic processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 5770.
Bouffard, M., Watkinson, E. J., Thompson, L. P., Causgrove Dunn, J. L., & Romanow, S. K. E. (1996). A
test of the activity deficit hypothesis with children with movement difficulties. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 13, 6173.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Towards an ecology of human development. The American Psychologist, 32, 513531.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious
mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding
(pp. 65116). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Butler, D. (2002). Qualitative approaches to investigating self-regulated learning: Contributions and
challenges. Educational Psychologist, 37, 5963.
Chambers, M. E., Sugden, D. A., & Sinani, C. (2005). The nature of children with developmental
coordination disorder. In D. A. Sugden & M. E. Chambers (Eds.), children with developmental
coordination disorder (pp. 118). London: Whurr.
Chi, M. T. H. (1981). Knowledge development and memory performance. In M. P. Friedman, J. P. Das, & N.
OConnor (Eds.), Intelligence and learning (pp. 221229). New York: Plenum.
Cleary, T., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Self-regulation differences during athletic practice by experts, nonexperts, and novices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 6182.
Cousins, M., & Smyth, M. M. (2003). Developmental coordination impairments in adulthood. Human
Movement Science, 22, 433459.
Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Smart problem solving: How metacognition helps. In D. J.
Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp.
4767). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
De Loache, J. S., & Brown, A. L. (1987). The early emergence of planning skills in children. In J. Bruner & H.
Haste (Eds.), Making sense: The childs construction of the world (pp. 108130). New York: Methuen.
Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H. P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated
learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis of self-regulation training programmes.
Educational Research Review, 3, 101129.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. The American Psychologist, 41, 10401048.
Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. In R.
Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Volume 38, perspectives on motivation (pp. 199
235). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Ericsson, K. A. (2003). The search for general abilities and basic capacities: Theoretical implications from the
modifiability and complexity of mechanisms mediating expert performance. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise (pp. 93125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. The American
Psychologist, 49, 725747.
Ferrari, M. (1996). Observing the observer: Self-regulation in the observational learning of motor skills.
Developmental Review, 16, 203240.
Ferrari, M., Pinard, A., Reid, L., & Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1991). The relationship between expertise and
self-regulation in movement performance: Some theoretical issues. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72,
139150.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention
Program for Cognitive Modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Part Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental
inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34, 906911.
Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R.
H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 2129). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Forman, E. A., & McPhail, J. (1996). Vygotskian perspective on childrens collaborative problem-solving
activities. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural
dynamics in childrens development (pp. 213229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R., et al. (2003). Enhancing third
grade students mathematical problem-solving with self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95, 306315.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A metaanalysis of SRSD studies. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning
disabilities (pp. 323344). New York: Guilford.
95
Hands, B., & Larkin, D. (2001). Developmental coordination disorder: A discrete disability. New Zealand
Journal of Disability, 9, 93105.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and selfregulation. Cambridge: Brookline.
Hattie, J. A., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills on interventions on student learning: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99136.
Henderson, S. E., & Sugden, D. A. (2007). Ecological intervention for children with movement difficulties.
London: Harcourt Brace.
Hill, E. L. (1998). A dyspraxic deficit in specific language impairment and developmental coordination
disorder? Evidence from hand and arm movements. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 40,
388395.
Hill, E. L. (2005). Cognitive explanations of the planning and organization of movement. In D. Sugden & M.
Chambers (Eds.), Children with developmental coordination disorder (pp. 4771). London: Whurr.
Humphries, T. W., Snider, L., & McDougall, B. (1993). Clinical evaluation of the effectiveness of sensory
integrative and perceptual motor therapy in improving sensory integrative function in children with
learning disabilities. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 13, 163182.
Kaplan, B. J., Wilson, B. N., Dewey, D., & Crawford, S. (1998). DCD may not be a discrete disorder.
Human Movement Science, 17, 471490.
Kirschenbaum, D. S. (1984). Self-regulation of sport psychology: Nurturing an emerging symbiosis. Journal
of Sport Psychology, 6, 159183.
Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulation of motoric learning: A strategic cycle view.
Journal of Applied Sports Psychology, 10, 220239.
Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Comparing self-regulatory processes among novice, non-expert,
and expert volleyball players: A microanalytic study. Journal of Applied Sports Psychology, 14, 91105.
Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. (2000). The role of observation and emulation in the
development of athletic self-regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 811817.
Kluwe, R. H. (1987). Executive decisions and regulation of problem solving behavior. In F. E. Weinert & R.
H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 3164). Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Larkin, D., & Rose, E. (2005). Assessment of developmental coordination disorder. In D. A. Sugden & M. E.
Chambers (Eds.), Children with developmental coordination disorder (pp. 135154). London: Whurr.
Lloyd, M., Reid, G., & Bouffard, M. (2006). Self-regulation of sport specific and educational problemsolving tasks by boys with and without DCD. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 23, 370389.
Losse, A., Henderson, S. E., Elliman, D., Hall, D., Knight, E., & Jongmans, M. (1991). Clumsiness in
children: Do they grow out of it? A 10-year follow-up study. Developmental Medicine and Child
Neurology, 88, 5568.
Luke, I., & Hardy, C. A. (1999). Cognitive strategies. In C. A. Hardy & M. Mawer (Eds.), Learning and
teaching in physical education (pp. 3858). London: Falmer.
Maccini, P., & Hughes, C. A. (2000). Effects of problem-solving strategy on the introductory algebra
performance of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 15, 1021.
Mandich, A. D., Polatajko, H. J., Missiuna, C., & Miller, L. T. (2001). Cognitive strategies and motor
performance in children with developmental coordination disorder. In C. Missiuna (Ed.), Children with
developmental coordination disorder: Strategies for success (pp. 125143). Binghamton: The Haworth.
Mandich, A. D., Polatajko, H. J., & Rodger, S. (2003). Rites of passage: Understanding participation of
children with developmental coordination disorder. Human Movement Science, 22, 583595.
Marchiori, G. E., Wall, A. E., & Bedingfield, W. (1987). Kinematic analysis of skill acquisition in physically
awkward boys. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 4, 305315.
Martin, J. (2004). Self-regulated learning, social cognitive theory, and agency. Educational Psychologist, 39
(2), 135145.
Martini, R., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Pointing to parallels in ability-related differences in the use of
metacognition in academic and psychomotor tasks. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 237247.
Martini, R., Wall, A. E., & Shore, B. M. (2004). Metacognitive processes underlying psychomotor
performance in children with differing psychomotor abilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 21,
248268.
McCaslin, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian
view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
Theoretical perspectives (pp. 227252). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McPherson, S. L., & Thomas, J. R. (1989). Relation of knowledge and performance in boys tennis: Age and
expertise. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 190211.
96
Missiuna, C. 1999. Children with fine motor difficulties. In Keeping current, 99 (pp. 17). Hamilton:
CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research, McMaster University.
Missiuna, C., Malloy-Miller, T., & Mandich, A. (1997). Cognitive, or Top-Down, approaches to
intervention. Hamilton, ON: CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research.
Montague, M. (1991). Gifted and learning-disabled gifted students knowledge and use of mathematical
problem-solving strategies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 393411.
Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical
problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
25, 230248.
Montague, M. (2001). Research on interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis
of outcomes related to higher-order processing. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 331348.
Newell, K. M. (1991). Motor skill acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 213237.
Newell, K. M., & Barclay, C. R. (1982). Developing knowledge about action. In J. A. S. Kelso & J. E. Clark
(Eds.), The development of movement control and co-ordination (pp. 175212). Chichester: Wiley.
Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal-setting and strategy use on the writing performance and
self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
230240.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F.
Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 1551). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. (2002). Academic emotions in students self-regulated learning and
achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91105.
Perry, N. (1998). Young childrens self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90(4), 715729.
Perry, N. (2002). Introduction: Using qualitative methods to enrich understandings of self-regulated learning.
Educational Psychologist, 37, 13.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich,
& M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451502). London: Elsevier.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 3340.
Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G.
J. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 4397). Lincoln:
Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Polatajko, H. J. (1999). Developmental coordination disorder (DCD): Alias the clumsy child syndrome. In K.
Whitmore, H. Hart, & G. Williams (Eds.), A neurodevelopmental approach to specific learning
disorders (pp. 119133). London: MacKeith.
Polatajko, H. J., & Mandich, A. (2004). Enabling occupation in children: The cognitive orientation to daily
occupational performance (CO-OP) approach. Ottawa: CAOT Publications ACE.
Polatajko, H. J., Kaplan, B. J., & Wilson, B. N. (1992). Sensory integration treatment for children with learning
disabilities: Its status 20 years later. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 12, 143155.
Polatajko, H. J., Fox, A. M., & Missiuna, C. (1995). An international consensus on children with
developmental coordination disorder. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 36.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive
reading. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., & Gaskin, I. (2006). Metacognitively competent reading comprehension is constructively
responsive reading: How can such reading be developed in students? Metacognition and Learning, 1,
99113.
Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & OSullivan, J. (1985). Childrens metamemory and the teaching of memory
strategies. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. McKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition
and human performance, vol. 1: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 111153). New York: Academic.
Rasmussen, P., & Gillberg, C. (2000). Natural outcome of ADHD with developmental coordination disorder
at age 22 years: A controlled longitudinal, community based study. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 14241431.
Sangster, C.A. 2009. The role of self-regulation in motor learning: Exploring the self-regulated motor
performance of children with developmental coordination disorder. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Faculty
of Education, University of Cambridge.
Sangster, C. A., Beninger, C., Polatajko, H. J., & Mandich, A. (2005). Cognitive strategy generation in children
with developmental coordination disorder. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, 6777.
Schneider, W. (1985). Developmental trends in the metamemorymemory behavior relationship. In D. L.
Forrest-Pressley, G. E. McKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human
performance, vol. 1: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 57109). New York: Academic.
97
Schneider, W., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1998). Memory. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology, vol. 2: Cognition, perception and language (5th ed., pp. 467521). New York: Wiley.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem-solving, metacognition and sense
making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 334370). New York: MacMillan.
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Socialcognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H.
Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 125
151). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in childrens thinking. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Siegler, R. S., & Shipley, C. (1995). Variation, selection and cognitive change. In T. Simon & G. Halford
(Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling (pp. 3176). Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Siegler, R. S., & Shrager, J. (1984). Strategy choices in addition and subtraction: How do children know
what to do? In C. Sophian (Ed.), Origins of cognitive skills (pp. 229293). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sugden, D. A. (1989). Skill generalization and children with learning difficulties. In D. Sugden (Ed.),
Cognitive approaches in special education (pp. 8299). London: Falmer.
Sugden, D. A. (Ed.). (2006). Leeds consensus statement: Developmental coordination disorder as a specific
learning difficulty. Leeds: DCD-UK/Dyscovery Centre.
Sugden, D. A. (2007). Current approaches to intervention in children with developmental coordination
disorder. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 49, 467471.
Sugden, D. A., & Chambers, M. E. (2005). Models of intervention: Towards an eco-developmental approach.
In D. A. Sugden & M. E. Chambers (Eds.), Children with developmental coordination disorder (pp.
189211). London: Whurr.
Sugden, D. A., & Wright, H. C. (1998). Motor coordination disorders in children. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sugden, D. A., Kirby, A., & Dunford, C. (2008). Issues surrounding children with developmental
coordination disorder. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 55(2), 173187.
Thomas, G. P. (2002). The social mediation of metacognition. In D. M. McInerney & S. van Etten (Eds.),
Sociocultural influences on motivation and learning (pp. 225247). Greenwich: Information Age.
Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method
designs? In C. Artfelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen fur
Forschung und Praxis (pp. 189204). Berlin: Waxmann.
Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and
task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 159176.
Veenman, M., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive
skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 1, 314.
Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., Lasure, S., Van Vaerenbergh, G., Bogaerts, H., & Ratinckx, E. (1999). Learning
to solve mathematical application problems: A design experiment with 5th graders. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 1, 195229.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1962. Thought and Language. (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge: MIT
Press. (Orig. work published 1934).
Wall, A. E., McClements, J., Bouffard, M., Findlay, H., & Taylor, M. J. (1985). A knowledge-based
approach to motor development: Implications for the physically awkward. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 2, 2142.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of
review literature. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 3043.
Wann, J. P., Mon-Williams, M., & Rushton, K. (1998). Postural control and coordination disorders: The
swinging room revisited. Human Movement Science, 17, 491513.
Whitebread, D., & Pino Pasternak, D. (2010). Metacognition, self-regulation, and meta-knowing. In K.
Littleton, C. Wood, & J. Kleine-Staarman (Eds.), Elsevier handbook of education: New perspectives on
learning and teaching. London: Elsevier.
Whitebread, D., Bingham, S., Grau, V., Pino Pasternak, D., & Sangster, C. (2007). Development of
metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children: The role of collaborative and peer-assisted
learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 3, 433455.
Whitebread, D., Pino Pasternak, D. & Sangster, C. 2007 Non-verbal indicators of metacognition in 35 year
old children. Paper presented at 12th EARLI Conference, Budapest, Hungary.
Wilson, P. H. (2005). Practitioner review: Approaches to assessment and treatment of children with DCD: An
evaluative review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(8), 806823.
Wilson, B. N., Kaplan, B. J., Fellowes, S., Gruchy, C., & Faris, P. (1992). The efficacy of sensory integration
treatment compared to tutoring. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 12, 136.
98
Wilson, P. H., Maruff, P., Ives, S., & Currie, J. (2001). Abnormalities of motor and praxis imagery in children
with developmental coordination disorder. Human Movement Science, 20, 135159.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M.
Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531566). San Diego: Academic.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Metacognition and learning disabilities. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon,
& T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance, vol. 2 (pp. 137180).
Orlando: Academic.
World Health Organization. 2001. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva:
World Health Organization. http://www3.who.int/icf. Accessed 27 May 2005.
Wrisberg, C. A. (2001). Levels of performance skill: From beginners to experts. In R. N. Singer, H. A.
Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 319). New York: Wiley.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.
Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 1339). San Diego: Academic.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving academic excellence: A self-regulatory perspective. In M. Ferrari (Ed.),
The pursuit of excellence through education (pp. 85110). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of self-regulatory processes
and beliefs. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 705722). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Art:10.1007/s10648 010 9148 1 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Art:10.1007/s10648 010 9148 1 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

The Role of Self-Regulatory and Metacognitive Competence

Published online: 2 December 2010

Abstract Children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) experience difficulty

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

and metacognitive competence in the difficulties experienced by children with DCD.

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Why Use a Self-regulated Learning Approach to Understanding DCD?

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

What Do We Know About Self-regulation and Metacognition?

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Methodological and Conceptual Considerations

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

individual differences or capacities of a child but also in developing a better understanding

Studying SR and Metacognition in the Motor Domain

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Studying SR Among Children with DCD

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

task and metacognitive knowledge, performed self-regulatory skill and motivational

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

examination of self-regulation and metacognitive competence is a promising area for

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:7598

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen