30

Supporting Young Children’s

Self-Regulation Development
Va l e s k a G r a u & D a v i d D . P re i s s

INTRODUCTION There is wide agreement that self-

regulation is an extremely relevant aspect
This chapter reviews the literature on the of cognitive development. In fact, one of
development of self-regulation and metacog- the main achievements of children’s devel-
nition and the contexts supporting them. opment is the ability to regulate their own
First, we define the concept of self-regulation thinking, affect and behavior (Roebers,
and other related constructs such as metacog- 2017). Moreover, early development of self-
nition and executive functioning. Then, we regulation abilities makes a significant con-
review the contributions of socio-cognitive tribution to children’s adaptation to school
and socio-cultural theories’ for the under- (Blair & Diamond, 2008), academic achieve-
standing of self-regulation. Third, we review ment throughout life and several dimensions
the literature in relation to early development of emotional well-being (Blair & Raver,
of self-regulation. Fourth, we summarise 21st 2015; Eisenberg, Smith & Spinrad, 2011;
century findings on the relationship between McClelland, Geldhof, Cameron &Wanless,
parenting as well as educational practices in 2015; Whitebread, 2014). This effect is
nursery, pre-school and primary school, the independent from that of general intel-
development of self-regulation as well as ligence as estimated by traditional cogni-
recommendations for educational practice in tive measures of IQ (Veenman and Spaans,
early years. This review includes develop- 2005). More important, while in intelligence
mental, social psychological and educational research there is not a definitive agreement
studies, so we present a multi-dimensional about the teachability and modifiability of
and wide-ranging summary of contemporary human intelligence (Sternberg, 2018), vari-
evidence. Finally, we draw lines for future ous studies have shown that self-regulation
research in the field. and metacognitive skills are learnt and can

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 535 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 536 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD

be taught to students from an early age and studied. Among these theories we can find
(Dignath, Buttner & Langfeld, 2008). Self- socio-cultural, socio-cognitive, cognitive and
regulation abilities begin to be developed neurophysiological theories. One of the main
in early childhood, mainly through social theoretical frameworks involved in explaining
interaction and dialogue (Whitebread, Pino- the development of SR is the socio-cultural
Pasternak &Coltman, 2015) and they are theory approach, which has its roots on the
strongly related to early language develop- work of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky
ment (Vallotton&Ayoub, 2011).This is an (1978), who studied and called attention on
important difference, as some scholars see the development of what he called higher
intelligence and metacognition as two sides order psychological functions, which relates
of the same coin: for instance, as abstract to self-regulation. Contemporary socio-
thought mainly promoted by literate prac- cultural approaches have built on Vygotsky’s
tices both at school and in culture in general intuition that the development of those higher
(Olson, 2005). order psychological functions rests on socio-
Despite the proliferation of research on interactive and socio-cultural processes:
this topic during the last decades, the con-
cept of self-regulation has not been exempt Any function in children’s cultural development
from debate regarding the proper concep- appears twice, or on two planes. First it appears on
the social plane and then on the psychological
tual definitions, theoretical boundaries, the plane. First it appears between people as an
nature of measurements (particularly in early interpsychological category and then within the
childhood), setting of developmental mile- individual child as an intra-psychological cate-
stones and about how to promote this ability gory… but it goes without saying that internaliza-
in childhood. This chapter addresses these tion transforms the process itself and changes its
structure and function. Social relations or relations
issues starting with an analysis of the con-
among people genetically underlie all higher func-
ceptual landscape in the self-regulation (SR) tions and their relationships. (Vygotsky, 1981,
literature, looking at similarities and differ- quoted in Cole, 1996, p.110–111)
ences among SR and related concepts such
as self-regulated learning (SRL), metacog- Following Cole and Derry (2005) have
nition (MC) and executive functions. Then, noted that the internalization process
we describe developmental and educational described by Vygotsky is contradictory with
research in relation to the way in which SR the notion that mental abilities are inbuilt
is described for different age groups and the and invariant across time, which is a basic
associated educational recommendations in tenet of mainstream theories of intelligence.
order to promote SR in early interactions As we will see below, in contrast to other
with children and early formal education. research traditions in psychology, research
in SRL has enthusiastically adopted a view
of metacognition and self-regulation as
developing abilities.
CONCEPTUAL DISTINCTIONS: Tomasello, Kruger, and Ratner (1993)
BOUNDARIES OF THE CONCEPTS OF identify three main forms of cultural learn-
SELF-REGULATION, SELF-REGULATED ing: imitative learning, instructed learning
LEARNING AND METACOGNITION. and collaborative learning. Imitative learn-
ing is the way favored by infants. Instructed
Different theoretical developments have made learning coordinates the perspective of the
a contribution in relation to the field of self- child and the adult. Following Vygotsky
regulation. Therefore, today different research (1978) Tomasello and collaborators indi-
lines describe a similar phenomenon. Still, cate that what children internalize through
they differ in the way in which SR is explained instructed learning is a dialogue:

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 536 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 SUPPORTING YOUNG CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION DEVELOPMENT 537

In the learning interaction children understand the closely related to SR, and has inspired a great
adult regulation (instruction), but they do so in amount of research. It was originally devel-
relation to their own task understanding, which
oped by Flavell (1979), who defined the term
requires a coordinating of the two perspectives.
(Tomasello et al., 1993, p. 500) broadly as cognition related to one’s own cog-
nitive processes. He distinguished two different
Finally, collaborative learning is based on processes: Metacognitive knowledge about an
shared intentionality, which involves shared individual’s own cognitive processes, the task
goals and joint intentions: and strategies; and metacognitive experiences,
which arethe part of metacognitive knowledge
Interactions of this type require not only an under- that come into consciousness, including the
standing of the goals, intentions, and perceptions
of other persons, but also, in addition, a motivation
evaluation of a task being performed or the
to share these things in interaction with others – feeling of knowing something. Later, Baker &
and perhaps special forms of dialogic cognitive Brown (1984) proposed that metacognition was
representation for doing so. (Tomasello, Carpenter, constituted by two different elements: knowl-
Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005, p. 676) edge about cognition and self-regulatory mech-
anisms, such as planning, revising checking
That is, they involve a strong component of
and evaluating. Thus, the term evolved from the
metacognitive self-regulation. Unfortunately
original idea of thinking about own cognitive
not all the forms of schooling capitalize as
processes developed byFlavell to include regu-
much on shared intentionality as would be
latory processes and therefore overlapped to a
expected, given homo sapiens natural propen-
greater extent with self-regulation(Dinsmore,
sion to engage in this type of interactions. That
Alexander & Loughlin, 2008). Most metacog-
said, collaborative learning is present in pre-
nition theories since Flavell have focused on
schoolers but develops more deeply in school
these two aspects: the knowledge of cognitive
age children. Tomasello and collaborators note
processes and the on-line control of these cog-
that as children advance through these differ-
nitive processes through monitoring and regu-
ent forms of cultural acquisition (from imita-
lation (Williams and Atkins, 2009). The last
tive learning, next to instructed learning and
aspect is the most related to self-regulation and
then to collaborative learning) their concept of
self-regulated learning.
person is transformed from that of a mere
The term self-regulation, in turn, has
intentional agent to one of a mental agent, and
also an important influence from the socio-
finally to a reflective agent. Not surprisingly,
cognitive perspective and the work of Bandura
Tomasello and contributors note that:
(1986), who initially emphasised behavio-
a variety of self-monitoring and metacognitive ral and emotional self-regulation (SR) and
skills emerge near the end of the preschool period includes the motivational dimensions which
and play an indispensable role in the child’s acqui- are critical in the models of SR but not in
sition of many of the most valued skills of Western
culture, such as reading and mathematics.
the models of metacognition. In fact, in the
(Tomasello et al., 1993, p. 499). context of early years research, SR has been
related to essential developmental processes,
The implications of a sociocultural approach such as delay of gratification, empathy, moral
to research on metacognition and self- development, social competence and adjust-
regulation have been deeply explored by ment, and academic performance (Eisenberg,
research on dialogue and exploratory talk, Smith, Sadovsky&Spinrad, 2004). SR is
which is addressed later in the chapter. therefore a multidimensional term, the dif-
In addition to the socio-cultural theory ferent elements of which have usually been
approach underlies research on SR, it was investigated separately (i.e. self-regulation
work advanced in cognitive psychology which of cognition, emotion or behavior). The term
coined the term ‘metacognition’. This term is self-regulated learning (SRL) is an extension

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 537 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 538 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD

of the concept of SR, as it focuses on self- especially because these concepts are more
regulation in academic settings and it includes inclusive of emotional and affective dimen-
aspects of SR and metacognition, integrating sions than metacognition or EF. One aspect of
cognitive, motivational and contextual fac- metacognition that is certainly always
tors (Dinsmore et al, 2008). included in the models of SR has to do with
Some researchers have claimed that the monitoring and control of an individual’s own
link behind all forms of regulation lies in cognitive processes (Baumeister & Vohs,
the executive aspects of attention (Fonagy& 2004). Therefore we will refer to that litera-
Target, 2002; Kopp, 1982; Posner &Rothbart, ture when describing child development.
1998). Attention is claimed to be a key pro-
cess of self-regulation, inhibitory control,
problem-solving strategies and monitoring
(Berger, Kofman, Livneh, & Henik, 2007). DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES
These claims relate the concept of SR with OF SELF-REGULATION
Executive function (EF). EF is another
term related to self-regulation and has been Within our growing understanding of children
defined as a set of higher order cognitive development, only recently there has been
processes related to behavior characterized recognition of early evidence of metacogni-
by being adaptive, flexible, goal directed tion and SR in preschool children (see
and the top-down regulation of behavior and Whitebread et al., 2007, 2009; Shamir,
cognition (Miyake et al., 2000). This line of Mevarech, &Gida, 2009). There is a range of
research started to gather interest in the late studies dealing with the study of emerging
80’s from the research in clinical neuropsy- SRL skills in young children, from the per-
chology as well as from the neurophysiologi- spective of self-regulatory skills or emergence
cal and neuroanatomical discoveries made in of metacognitive knowledge and control.
relation to the functions of the frontal lobe As SRL is mainly a concept related to aca-
(Welsh & Pennington, 1988). EF is concep- demic achievement, the emergence of early
tually more similar to metacognition -rather indicators has been framed as development
than SR or SRL- because the two concepts of self-regulation or metacognitive skills.
are mainly conceptualised as higher order It has been claimed that children as young
cognitive processes allowing more flexible as 2-4 months old are able to be involved
adaptations of an individual (Roebers, 2017). in joint monitoring and control interactions
SR and SRL, in turn considers a wider set of with adults (Brinck&Liljenfors, 2013). Kopp
processes including motivational, emotional, (1989) has argued that the first observable
cognitive and behavioral processes and has SR in infants occurs when they attempt to
been mainly linked to the abilities of plan- reduce arousal turning away from stimula-
ning, monitoring, regulating and reflecting tion or engaging in self-soothing behaviors.
on an individual’s own activity. Schunk and As infants increasingly improve their motor
Zimmerman have defined SRL as: skills, they are able to perform more self-
directed behaviors and comply with parental
the processes whereby learners personally activate requirements. Toddlers start succeeding in
and sustain cognitions, affects and behaviours that
some self-regulation challenges, however,
are systematically oriented toward the attainment
of personal goals. it seems that only at preschool agethe term
evolved from the original idea of thinking
(Zimmerman &Schunk, 2011, p. 1) about own cognitive processes developed
byFlavell to include regulatory processes
There is more theoretical diversity in SR and and therefore overlapped to a greater extent
SRL research than in metacognition research with self-regulation children are able to start

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 538 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 SUPPORTING YOUNG CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION DEVELOPMENT 539

self-regulating. Still, the extent to which they an attractive activity. These observations
become metacognitively aware of their cog- were conducted when children were 14, 22,
nitive process is not clear and there seem to 33 and 45 months. It was observed that com-
be wide individual differences. mitted compliance, the one in which children
Studies looking for early predictors of showed sincere commitment to the maternal
SR have focused on the study of attentional agenda, had an upward trend from 14 to 33
control and the relationship with the devel- months, the main gain occurring during the
opment of self-regulation (Rueda, Posner, second year of life. Girls were significantly
& Rothbart, 2005). Although infants gener- more regulated than boys at all ages. Another
ally lack executive attentional control, there interesting finding was that sustaining tedi-
is evidence, using the A not B task, that a ous behaviour presented more self-regulatory
1 year-old infants can inhibit the prepotent challenges to children at all ages than sup-
response of looking for an object in theloca- pressing a pleasant activity. The authors sug-
tion in which it is first seen being hidden, and gest that this could be explained by the fact
reach for it in a new location to where they that in the former situation the child has to
had seen it hidden subsequently(Diamond, coordinate more actions, and that parents
1991). From 2 to 4 years old, there seems to tend to socialize children more in ‘not to do
be clear progress in other tasks where they things’ than in requiring them to engage in
are required to solve a conflict between the tedious activities. These studies show that
identity and location of an object, being more there seem to be some early elements of
accurate in their responses (Gerardi-Caulton, executive function, such as attentional con-
2000) and being more able to notice errors trol, inhibition and effortful control, that pro-
(Rothbart, Ellis, Rueda, & Posner, 2003; vide the bases for the later development of
Jones, Rothbart, & Posner, 2003). These SR and SRL.
studies have been conducted in the labora- Some of the most studied aspects of SRL
tory. However, connections have been made have to do with the development of monitor-
frequently with parental ratings and observa- ing and control skills, although there has not
tions, finding that effortful control is related been extensive research in early years devel-
to high levels of empathy, low level of aggres- opment. There have been different results
sive behavior, (Eisenberg, Fabes, Nyman, considering the methodology used (Bryce
Bernzweig, & Pinuelas, 1994) internalized &Whitebread, 2012). There is evidence
behavioral control and moral principles, showing that monitoring skills could be well
especially when mothers endorsed gentle developed by the age of 6 (Schneider, Vise,
discipline (Kochanska, 1995; Kochanska, Locki, & Nelson, 2000).However, it seems
Murray, & Harlan, 2000). that self-evaluation abilities develop earlier
Compliance with caregivers has also been than self-prediction skills, which means that
studied as a form of early self-regulation, as findings in this area could depend on which
it involves following certain rules or supress- measure of monitoring is being used.
ing some kinds of behaviors in relation to There are mainly two methods used to meas-
parental standards (Gralinski & Kopp, 1993). ure monitoring:The first method is focused
Kochanska, Coy & Murray (2001) stud- on monitoring of an individual own perfor-
ied longitudinally the development of self- mance on the task, which includes judge-
regulation in 108 children during the first ments of learning (JOL), feelings of knowing
4 years of life. Throughout this period they (FOK) or confidence ratings (O’Leary &
observed children with their mothers in two Sloutsky, 2017). In relation to this method,
types of contexts: one in which the mothers there is research indicating that even children
asked children to carry out tedious behaviors of 3-year-old are capable of monitoring their
and another in which children had to suppress performance under certain circumstances.

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 539 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 540 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD

Thus, although sometimes children are over- They designed an experiment in which there
confident about their performance, they also were two comparable tasks. However, for one
show lower confidence for incorrect responses task, there was not any kind of feedback or
than for correct responses (Hembacher & instruction in relation to performance or use
Ghetti, 2014; Lyons & Ghetti, 2013). of strategies during the task, and for the other
The second method of measuring children’s task both feedback and instruction was pro-
monitoring skills isfocused on monitoring dif- vided. Results showed that, in the no feed-
ferent aspects of the task such as level diffi- back or instruction task, adults successfully
culty, or time or effort required to complete the monitored and controlled their performance
task. The study of ease of learning (EOL) or but children of 5 and 7 years old consistently
time allocation is in this category. In contrast failed in using adaptive strategies to improve
toperformance monitoring, children do not their performance, even though some chil-
seem to develop the ability to differentiate the dren were able to monitor the difficulty of
difficulty of a task until later, around the age of the task. This result is consistent with Paulus,
6 (Lockl & Schneider, 2004). Tsalas, Proust and Sodian (2014) who also
O’Leary and Sloutsky (2017) suggest two found that children as young as 6 years old
types of explanations related to the differ- were able to monitor the difficulty of a task.
ences in performance and task monitoring in However, in relation to performance monitor-
young children: it could be the case that mon- ing, a developmental trend was found from 5
itoring task and performance are different years olds, who tended to overestimate their
dimensions of metacognitive monitoring and performance, to adults, who tended to under-
have different developmental trajectories, or estimate their performance, with 7 year olds
it might be the task used which is making the falling in between. By contrast, in the second
difference. In other words, some structures task, when they were given feedback and
of tasks might be differentially scaffolding instructions, even 5 year olds improved their
metacognitive monitoring. task monitoring. However, children’s estima-
Furthermore, it has been suggested that tion of their performance did not improve in
the poor performance of children in mem- this condition. These results show that moni-
ory tasks and other domains is related to a toring of performance and task difficulty
weak link between monitoring and control. do seem to follow different developmental
Regarding this issue, results are contradic- paths. Further, regarding metacognitive con-
tory. Some studies have found that young trol, 5 year olds control behaviors were not
children are not able to use the information affected by the presence of feedback but they
they obtain through monitoring in control- were by the addition of instruction.
ling their performance (Schneider et al., These findings, taken together, suggest that
2000), while others have found that chil- monitoring and control are independent pro-
dren as young as 3 years old show evidence cesses and that children can execute a sug-
of metacognitive monitoring and control gested strategy but they find it rather difficult
(Hembacher & Ghetti, 2014; Lyons & Ghetti, to formulate new strategies by themselves.
2013). However, in these studies, children are The educational implications of this
asked to judge their performance trial by trial, research are relevant because it provides evi-
which could possibly give them feedback that dence that it is possible to enhance young chil-
allow them to improve their performance. dren’s ability to improve their metacognitive
In order to tackle these issues, O’Leary monitoring and control when given adequate
&Sloutsky (2017) designed a study in which feedback and appropriate instruction in rele-
they compared 5-year-olds, 7-year olds and vant cognitive strategies. That said, it is worth
adults in relation to performance monitoring, noting that more research is needed in natural-
task monitoring, and metacognitive control. istic environments with tasks that are relevant

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 540 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 SUPPORTING YOUNG CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION DEVELOPMENT 541

for the children and not only through experi- self-regulatory behaviors. These studies are
mental research (Bryce &Whitebread, 2012). very time consuming and also face meth-
Despite the agreement of the development odological challenges as the causation of
of metacognitive skills around 7–8 years old, SR behavior is difficult to estimate and the
there is also evidence of their continuing possibilities of generalization are limited.
development through adolescence. Metcalfe However, the conduction of such studies is
and Finn (2013) showed how 8–9 years old worthwhile to understand the development of
children, despite having a certain level of SR skills.
metacognitive knowledge, do not use it to
control their activity, whereas 10–11 years
old children can use their metacognitive
knowledge to improve their learning strate- EARLY PREDICTORS OF SRL
gies, although not very effectively. Roebers,
Krebs and Roderer (2014), in a study with In this section we will review individual dif-
children of 9 and 11 years old, showed that ferences and studies searching for predicting
older children not only have a higher devel- factors of SRL in childhood. One area of
opment of metacognitive monitoring and research accumulating an interesting body of
control, but there was also a higher influence knowledge is the one related to how parental
of monitoring skills over metacognitive con- behaviour could promote SR and SRL. A
trol, influencing task achievement. Likewise, systematic review of studies looking into
van der Stel and Veenman (2010) developed parental influences on children’s self-
a longitudinal study with children of 12 and regulation in children at preschool and school
14 years old, where they showed that 14 age identified a set of parental behaviors
years old children not only presented more related to cognitive and emotional aspects of
frequency of metacognitive actions than 12 SRL (Pino-Pasternak &Whitebread, 2010).
years olds, but also developed higher qual- Based on this review, they identified three
ity and more effective actions to regulate and parental dimensions (challenge, autonomy
control their learning activities. Hence, the and contingency) and six parental behaviors
evidence shows that, regardless individual (contingent instructional scaffolding, emo-
differences, metacognitive knowledge and tional responsiveness, shifts in responsibility,
regulation, and their effectiveness to regulate understanding of control, active participation
learning continues to improve with age. and metacognitive talk) related to SRL. It is
Investigations continue in relation to SR interesting to note that although there were
and SRL in young children that measure many predictive studies, longitudinal and
aspects of executive function or metacogni- intervention studies were not found. Also,
tion as aspects of self-regulation. However, it when looking at methods of data collection,
is more difficult to find research in relation there was a predominance of self-report and
to children’s goal directed activity, through de-contextualized problem solving activities
which we could analyse cognitive, emotional over the choice of naturalistic frameworks to
and behavioral aspects of self-regulation in observe genuine interactions between parents
a more integrated way. Nevertheless, there and children.
are notable examples of this kind of research Valcan, Davis and Pino-Pasternak (2018)
such as the CIndLe Project (Whitebread conducted a meta-analysis of 42 predic-
et al., 2005; Whitebread et al., 2007) in which tive studies through which they explored
children were observed in naturalistic envi- the relationship between parental behav-
ronments regulating their activity and ana- ior and early childhood executive func-
lyzed these observations were analysed using tion (0–8 years). They categorized parental
a coding scheme of verbal and non-verbal behavior into positive features (such as

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 541 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 542 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD

responsiveness, sensitivity, warmth); nega- EF tasks, which shows only partially what a
tive features (such as control, intrusiveness, child is capable of doing. More observational
detachment), and cognitive features (such as measures of naturally occurring behaviour
autonomy support or scaffolding). All these should be developed, in order to have a more
types of behavior correlated significantly integrative and authentic estimation of what
with a composite EF. Positive and negative a child is capable of doing at different ages
parental behavior showed a stable pattern (Whitebread et al., 2009).
of correlation across children’s ages. That
is, parents that were warm, responsive and
sensitive tended to have children with higher
EF (Bernier, Carlson, & Whipple, 2010; EARLY EDUCATIONAL
Bindman, Pomerantz, & Roisman, 2015). INTERVENTIONS
On the contrary, parents who are controlling,
intrusive or detached had children with lower Traditionally, a large part of the investiga-
EF (Meuwissen & Carlson, 2015). This is tion of SRL had been developed with stu-
consistent with socio-cultural theory, as posi- dents in the upper-elementary grades through
tive parenting promotes the internalization of college (Dignath et al., 2008). Initially
self-regulatory processes and gives structure researchers were not certain whether young
to children’s thinking (Valcan et al., 2018). children were capable to acquire cognitive
Parental cognitive behavior, however, showed and metacognitive strategies. However, as
a stronger effect size in young children than stated in the previous section, there has
older children, which is also supportive of the been an increase of research in early self-
relevance of early interventions. regulation and also in early years educa-
Other predictors of self-regulation have tional interventions.
been also examined. In a longitudinal study, Gagne and Nwadinobi (2018) carried out a
Montroy, Bowles, Skkibe et al (2016) fol- multi-theoretical review of research interven-
lowed 1381 children who were assessed in tions in self-regulation and other related con-
behavioral self-regulation from 3 to 7 years- cepts in early childhood such as self-control and
old. They found that gender, language devel- executive function. Among the curriculum-
opment and mother’s education affected the based interventions they found research
trajectory of SR. That is, girls, early language reports on ‘Tools of the Mind’, an early years
developers and children with more highly program based on Vygotsky’s theory aim-
educated mothers developed SR earlier. ing to improve executive function through
However, It is important to note that the way an emphasis on social interaction in shared
of measuring SR was through the Head-Toes- activities with teachers and peers. In this pro-
Knees-Shoulders HTKS task which is essen- gram, teachers also scaffold the use of learn-
tially an EF task, but correlates with SR in ing tools such as language, number systems
the classroom (Cameron Ponitz, McClelland, or mapping (National Academies of Sciences,
Matthews, & Morrison, 2009). Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). In a ran-
It is worth noting that despite the fact dom assigned study, children assigned to the
that early development of self-regulation is Tools curriculum significantly outperformed
widely recognized, and that there is a fair the control group on tasks related to self-
agreement in the general definitions, the char- control and inhibition (Diamond, Barnett,
acterization of dimensions of the construct Thomas, & Munro, 2007). Similar results
and the operationalization of the variables were produced by Blair and Raver (2014),
involved is still in its infancy. When young who demonstrated effects of the Tools pro-
children are studied, the more frequent meth- gram in kindergarten children on measures
ods of collecting SR measures are related to of working memory, reaction time, inhibitory

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 542 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 SUPPORTING YOUNG CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION DEVELOPMENT 543

control, cognitive flexibility and informa- to find studies, which measure self-regulated
tion processing. A recent review of experi- learning skills in young children, mainly due
mental and quasi-experimental studies of the to the lack of adequate instruments to evalu-
Tools intervention in the USA, however, has ate SRL in larger samples. One of the best
shown that the effects sizes are small, there ways to evaluate SRL in young children
are only few experimental studies and there- is through observation of their behavior in
fore the evidence of the effectiveness of the natural contexts when they are engaged in
Tools program on self-regulation is not yet meaningful activities (Whitebread et al.,
conclusive (Baron, Evangelou, Malmberg, & 2009; Whitebread &Pino-Pasternak, 2013).
Melendez-Torres, 2017). However, that is time-consuming and expen-
Other curriculum based interventions, sive. Hence, studies tend to measure EF as
directed to improve EF skills for at-risk pre- a proxy of SR and SRL. More work has to
schoolers have been reported, such as the be conducted in relation to the development
School Intervention Program and Cognitive of valid methodologies to understand SRL in
Training Program, studied Argentinian chil- young children.
dren. Findings indicated that children from
higher SES backgrounds tended to perform
at a higher level (Segretin et al., 2014).
Weiland &Yoshikawa (2013) reported good SELF-REGULATION IN PRIMARY
results in EF, reading and math skills in 4–5 SCHOOL
year old children, through a comprehensive
curriculum, fostering socio-emotional and SRL has become a core area of interest in
cognitive skills. learning research because, as noted by Paris
There are also curricula more directed and Paris, across time research on instruction
towards emotional regulation. The School has evolved from a didactic approach to a
Readiness Program falls into this category, more integrated one which puts emphasis on
which is designed to decrease behavio- ‘reflective and scaffolded instruction’ (p. 91).
ral problems in preschool among children As the authors note, within the different
involved in Head Start Programs. This has approaches to SRL, those emphasizing the
shownsignificant decreases in children’s role of others in fostering SRL are the ones
behavioral problems (Raver et al., 2009). that have garnered more attention by educa-
Another successful programme is the Second tors. Paris and Paris (2001) summarized the
Step Pre/Kindergarten Social and Emotional main principles of SRL, as described previ-
Learning curriculum, which showed improve- ously by Paris and Winograd (1999), to apply
ments in classroom climate and teacher inter- within the classroom. These principles
action after a 2 year intervention (Upshur, emphasize self-assessment of the learning
Wenz-Gross, & Reed, 2013). process, self-management of the cognitive,
Despite some positive results, more stud- emotional and effort aspects of learning, and,
ies are needed to fully understand which are most important, that there are several ways to
the best ways to promote self-regulation in teach self-regulation, which can be either
early childhood. Not only bigger samples and implicit or explicit. Notwithstanding some
experimental designs, but also a better opera- differences of emphasis, there seems to be
tionalization of what we call improvements in relative agreement between researchers about
self-regulation. Most of the studies presented what type of strategies teachers should use.
here are aimed to develop aspects of EF such Perry (2013) summarizes a series of practices
as attention, cognitive flexibility, inhibition that teachers use when they foster self-
and school readiness including language, regulatory abilities within the classroom.
literacy, numeracy, math skills. It is not easy Specifically, teachers:

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 543 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 544 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD

offer explicit instruction and extensive scaffolding, According to Reeve (2009), teaching auton-
establish familiar participation structures, encour- omy support has a positive impact on motiva-
age peer support, and engage in non-threatening
tion (autonomy), engagement, development,
evaluation practices. They carefully orchestrate
opportunities for students to engage in SRL with learning (including learning of self-
support (e.g. metacognitive questioning, informa- regulation strategies), academic perfor-
tive and/or elaborative feedback) that attends to mance, and well-being. Autonomy support in
multiple zones of proximal development and the classroom can take several forms. A rel-
increases the likelihood of success. (p. 61).
evant distinction is that of organizational,
procedural and cognitive autonomy support
Perry (2013) noted that SRL involves meta-
(Stefanou et al., 2004). Organizational auton-
cognition, motivation and strategic action.
omy support is related with students making
Metacognition allows reflection about
decisions concerned with the organization of
strengths and weaknesses relative to the
their schoolwork. Procedural autonomy sup-
ongoing tasks, motivation weights on the
port gives students options to decide in
importance students give to overcoming chal-
which learning activities they engage.
lenges and achieving understanding in tasks,
Cognitive autonomy support asks students to
and strategic action is implemented when
evaluate or justify their decisions. SRL is
students approach their tasks effectively using
related to the latter. The sole presence of
a wide repertoire of strategies. Moreover,
practices promoting organizational or proce-
teachers should be able to foster intrinsic
dural autonomy will not guarantee self-
motivation in their students in order to trigger
regulatory behavior, whereas cognitive
the use of cognitive and metacognitive strate-
autonomy support will (Perry, 2013).
gies (Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio &
As mentioned above, initially most of
Turner, 2004). Similarly, Baker (2013) pro-
the research on SRL was implemented in
poses a list of practices promoting metacog-
advanced grades. Yet, the growing awareness
nitive knowledge and self-regulation: explicit
that young children are capable of benefiting
instruction of metacognitive strategies, a tran-
from SRL has stimulated the accumulation
sition from external teacher regulation
of knowledge and interventions in this area.
towards students’ self-regulation, providing
As regards specific interventions, Boekaerts
feedback that is informative on strategies,
(1999) proposes that interventions in SRL
providing students with opportunities to eval-
can focus on three types of strategies: cogni-
uate the effectiveness of their strategies,
tive, metacognitive and motivational. Dignath
making explicit the association between
et al. (2008) used these distinctions to imple-
learning results and learning strategies, and
ment a meta-analysis of 48 treatment com-
providing opportunities for metacognitive
parisons involving studies on enhancing SRL
knowledge transfer across subjects.
in primary school students. This showed that
A related area of work is that of autonomy
SRL programs are effective at the primary
support, specifically looking at how teachers
school level, complementing previous studies
promote students’ autonomy (Reeve, 2009;
such as that produced by Hattie, Biggs and
Reeve & Jang, 2006). Teacher practices that
Purdie (1996), which was related to second-
promote autonomy support include:
ary school or university students. Particularly,
taking the students’ perspective, creating oppor- Dignath and collaborators reported that SRL
tunities for students’ input and initiative, offering training programs had a positive impact on
learning activities in need-satisfying ways, provid- several variables including learning outcomes
ing explanatory rationales for teacher requests,
(although with some variations depending
and acknowledging and accepting students’
expressions of negative afffectas both under- upon the subject), use of strategies and moti-
standable and okay. (Cheon, Reeve, Lee & Lee, vational aspects. The effect sizes reported for
2018, p. 43). motivation and metacognitive and cognitive

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 544 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 SUPPORTING YOUNG CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION DEVELOPMENT 545

strategy use were quite high (.76 and .73, cultural dimensions of learning (Olson and
respectively.), with mathematics displaying Bruner, 1996, Preiss, 2010; Olson, 2003).
the highest effect in academic performance One of the researchers exploring those con-
and reading/writing being the next highest. nections in depth has been Mercer (2013),
This analysis also assessed the theoretical who has been interested in examining the
background of the interventions and they contribution of classroom dialogue to chil-
found that the interventions that were the dren’s self-regulation, particularly between
most effective were those inspired by social- children and their teachers. For Mercer,
cognitive theories, either alone or in combi- work on exploratory talk is complementary
nation with metacognitive ones. Interventions to that on self-regulation and metacognition.
inspired in motivational theories had low As he notes, research on SR and research on
effects. That said, however, as regards the classroom dialogue have followed different
specific strategies used, the interventions that research traditions, yet they refer to two par-
were most effective were those combining allel processes, which should be integrated in
different types of strategies: cognitive, meta- order to better understand children’s cognitive
cognitive and motivational. A further rel- development. Specifically, exploratory talk is
evant conclusion of this study was that even an ‘essential means a dialogue’ (2013, p. 5).
young students could benefit effectively from in contrast to other forms of classroom talk
SRL interventions. The authors conjecture that are mostly presentational and led by the
that early interventions may be particularly teacher or another adult. More specifically,
efficient, even between the different grades exploratory talk involves dialogue where:
of primary school, because ‘older students
everyone engages critically but constructively with
already command a strategy repertory which each other’s ideas; everyone offers the relevant
is harder to change’ (Dignath et al., 2008, information they have; everyone’s ideas are treated
p. 120). Another recent meta-analysis (Donker, as worthy of consideration; partners ask each
de Boer, Kostons, Dignath van Ewick, & other questions and answer them, ask for reasons
and give them; members of the group try to reach
van der Werf, 2014) tested for differences in
agreement at each stage before progressing; ‘to
age and grade in a total of 95 interventions an observer of the group, reasoning is ‘visible’ in
which included both primary and secondary the talk.
students. The skills involved were cognitive,
metacognitive and management skills in addi- (Littleton & Mercer, 2013, p. 16.)
tion to motivational aspects and metacogni-
tive knowledge.As regards differences in age Although schools favor that sort of adult-run
and grade, Donker and collaborators reported talk structure, because of their need to cover
that both primary and secondary students curricular contents and their own conven-
benefitted from the instruction of strategies. tional practice, dialogical talk has positive
They also reported that metacognitive knowl- impacts on academic achievement. Mercer &
edge instruction improved academic perfor- Howe (2012) noted that a growing body of
mance, and that this was more effective in research:
primary than secondary education, which was has shown positive effects when students
noted by the authors as consistent with previ- are encouraged to talk and work together on
ous meta-analyses. curriculum-related tasks, particularly when they
support their views with reasons and differences of
As mentioned, interventions based on
opinion (and the reasons behind them) are dis-
socio-cognitive approaches were particularly cussed and resolved. (p. 14)
positive. We think that this suggests that there
are many possible theoretical and pragmatic These indications are clearly compatible
links between work on SRL and pedagogi- with those suggested by researchers in the
cal approaches emphasizing the social and field of SRL. Mercer (2013) notes that

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 545 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 546 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD

exploratory talk has some characteristics that is defined as the joint regulation of learning
have been shown to impact positively learn- processes, building shared representations,
ing in sciences (Howe, Tolmie, at al, 2007). goals and strategies in relation to the task
Inspired by this theory, Mercer and col- (Hadwin, Järvelä, & Miller, 2011). It is led
laborators have developed a number of stud- by processes of metacognitive monitoring and
ies under a programme of research labeled control of cognition, behaviour, motivation
Thinking Together, capitalizing on digital and emotion, in order to achieve group goals
technology. One of the studies inspired by (Winne, Hadwin & Perry, 2013; Järvelä &
this program showed that children, aged Hadwin, 2013). Thus, this research line aims
nine- and 10-years-old, that received an to investigate the way groups regulate their
intervention in exploratory talk, in addition collective activity and how these regulatory
to adopting a more dialogical style of com- processes can have an impact on learning. The
munication, presented reasons for their state- study of SSRL is fairly recent, and despite the
ments and considered more than one position increasing number of published articles, there
in decision making (Wegerif, Mercer, & are still important challenges in the field such
Dawes, 1998). Another study showed that as the lack of a unified theoretical framework
reasoning ability, as evaluated by standard and a clear definition, and the lack of suffi-
tests such as the Raven’s Matrices, benefit cient studies relating SSRL to learning results
from exploratory talk both at the group and (Panadero & Järvela, 2015). Most of the stud-
individual level (Mercer, Wegerif and Dawes, ies published to date have been carried out
1999). More recently, Kershner, Mercer, in older children or university students with
Warwick, and KleineStaarman (2010) stud- the exception of a few studies such as Pino-
ied twelve class teachers and their 8–10 year Pasternak, Basilio, and Whitebread (2014)
old students. In each class, the teacher identi- which included 1st and 3rd grade students, and
fied a group of three children as the ‘target’ Grau andWhitebread (2012) with 3rd grade
group for observation during three lessons. students. These studies found that episodes of
In addition to videoed lesson observations, SSRL were correlated to the discussion of fun-
researchers interviewed target groups, damental aspects of a collaborative learning
implemented teacher discussions and col- task. Finally, the study of Grau, Lorca, Araya
lected lesson plans and other documents. et al. (2018), also included 3rd grade students,
The study involved teachers presenting stu- and showed that SSRL was related to success
dents talk rules to children using interac- in a collaborative learning task (Grau, Lorca &
tive whiteboards. According to the authors’ Araya, 2016).
observations and interviews the IWB may Although one could expect children to
contribute to students thinking and commu- end primary school with a reasonable level
nication, although these contributions are of development in self-regulation, that is
dependent on the students engagement with not necessarily the case. To illustrate this,
the affordances provided by the technologi- the TIMMS video studies in mathemat-
cal tool, the development of dialogue, partici- ics developed in 1995 and 1999 (Hiebert,
pation and the implementation of talk rules, et al., 2003; Stigler, Gallimore, & Hiebert,
which all together help students deal with the 2000; Stigler, Gonzales, Kawanaka, Knoll, &
challenges of working with IWB. Serrano, 1999; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999)
Another line of research applying SRL generated comparative evidence about a
in classrooms has used the Socially Shared number of classroom variables. The TIMSS
Regulation of Learning (SSRL) model 1995 video study showed some diversity
(Iiskala, Vaurus, & Lehtinen, 2004; Hadwin & between countries in the proportion of les-
Oshige, 2011). The concept of SSRL derives sons involving what the researchers called all
from the socio-cognitive literature of SRL. It task-controlled tasks. These tasks involved

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 546 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 SUPPORTING YOUNG CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION DEVELOPMENT 547

an initial demonstration by the teacher on CONCLUSION

how to solve a mathematical problem and
subsequent application by the students of the In this chapter, we have presented a review of
exact method to a similar problem. This is a the theoretical foundations and the current
type of task, clearly, that is not compatible research on the development of self-regulation
with the indications provided by research in early childhood, including evidence from
on SRL. Results showed that 83 percent of developmental studies and early years educa-
the eighth grade U.S. mathematics lessons tion programs. As implied across the article,
involved this type of task. That is, students there are many areas of connection between
were tied to the procedure demonstrated by socio-cultural and cognitive research on meta-
the teacher. Japan had a very different pat- cognition and self-regulation. One of the areas
tern, as only 17 percent of the observed of agreement between these two areas of
lessons displayed all task-controlled tasks. research is the notion that both self-regulation
More importantly, in Japan 40 percent of the and metacognition are modifiable and that
lessons included all solver-controlled tasks, cultural and instructional practices can make a
that is, tasks where the teachers asked stu- difference in their development.In addition to
dents to search for alternative methods for this conceptual agreement, there is a need to
solving a problem. Further, 43 percent of the explore other theoretical connections between
lessons involved a combination of both types these two areas of investigation. Sociocultural
of tasks (Stigler et al, 1999). Other dimen- research can provide cognitive research with
sions suggested that use of metacognition methodologies and tools to investigate in natu-
was not equally favoured across countries. ralistic settings, such as classrooms, the
To illustrate, the TIMSS 1995 video study instructional processes associated to their
investigated the presence of proofs in the development. On the other hand, a sociocul-
classrooms, which were defined as a ‘rea- tural approach can provide an encompassing
soned method of verification based on the framework that allows a better integration of
accepted assumptions and observations of the cognitive, motivational, emotional and
the discipline’ (Stigler et al., 1999, p. 57). It behavioural aspects of self-regulation and
found that none of the US lessons observed metacognition with those of an interactional
included proofs, although 10 percent of the and developmental nature. In turn, this socio-
German lessons observed included them and cultural framework can inform applied initia-
53 percent of the Japanese.The TIMSS 1999 tive by incorporating contextual variables(such
study found that proofs were rarely used in as instructional styles, collaborative arrange-
Australia, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, ments, tools and cognitive tools) that are
the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United instrumental in developing these variables.
States (Hiebert et al, 2003). Studies inspired Despite the advance of research in this
by the TIMSS studies in Chile have shown area within the last two decades, there are
similar results. The results of these studies still many issues to address in future research.
favoured the consideration of Japan as some One of those issues is related to the nature of
sort of reference to inspire educational change the definitions of the dimensions related to
during the beginning of the 21st century and self-regulation and its consequent operation-
the dissemination of ‘lesson study’ meth- alization. Although most of the studies define
ods to improve teaching in the classroom. self-regulation as a skill related to monitoring
Exploration of this strategy goes further than and controlling own cognition, motivation,
the goals of this chapter but we believe that emotion and behavior, very few studies look
integration of this type of method in SRL at self-regulation as an integrated construct.
research would be a worthwhile enterprise to Therefore, it is common to find a collection of
foster SRL in the classroom. articles concerned with effects and predictors

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 547 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 548 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD

of self-regulation with no comparable meas- REFERENCES

urements. Likewise, the tasks used to evalu-
ate SR tend to rely on adults’ self-report or an Baker, L. (2013). Metacognitive strategies. In J.
experimental task design in which children are A. C. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), Inter-
exposed to decontextualized tasks. Also, it is national guide to student achievement
frequent to find the use of partial measures fre- (pp. 419–422). London, UK: Routledge.
quently related to aspects of EF more than inte- Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive
skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr,
grated measures of SR. Moreover, despite the
M. L. Kamil and P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Hand-
claims that children perform better when they
book of Reading Research (pp. 353–394).
are in naturalistic environments (Whitebread New York: Longman.
et al., 2009), little progress has been made in Bandura, A., & National Inst of Mental Health.
the development of valid measures of chil- (1986). Prentice-Hall series in social learning
dren’s self-regulation in these contexts. One theory. Social foundations of thought and
area that seems worth exploring is the develop- action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
ment of assessment of self-regulation through Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
play. Play is a meaningful activity for children Baron, A., Evangelou, M., Malmberg, L. &
and it requires effort, self-direction, autonomy Melendez-Torres, G. (2017). The Tools of the
and the capacity to monitor and regulate differ- Mind Curriculum for Improving Self-Regulation
in Early Childhood: A Systematic Review.
ent aspects of their activity. In their video anal-
Campbell Systematic Reviews 2017:10
ysis of SR in pre-school settings in the UK,
Baumeister, R. F., &Vohs, K. D. (2004). Hand-
Whitebread et al. (2009) noted that this mostly book of self-regulation: Research, theory,
occurred during play episodes Therefore, cre- and applications. New York, NY: Guilford
ating standardised play-situations could help Press.
us to move forward in the field. Berger, A., Kofman, O.,Livneh, U., &Henik, A.,
Another aspect in which it is necessary to (2007). Multidisciplinary perspectives on atten-
move forward is in the development of longi- tion and the development of self-regulation.
tudinal studies that allow researchers to find Progress in Neurobiology, 82, 256–286.
more accurate associations between early Doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2007.06.004
care and education with SR later in childhood Bernier, A., Carlson, S., Whipple, N. (2010).
From External Regulation to Self-Regulation:
and even into adulthood, as the study of indi-
Early Parenting Precursors of Young Chil-
vidual differences in developmental paths is
dren’s Executive Functioning. Child Develop-
not currently well developed. ment, 81(1), 326–339. Doi: 10.1111/j.
Finally, there is a clear need to develop 1467-8624.2009.01397.x
cross-cultural studies of SR development in Bindman, S., Pomerantz, E. &Roisman, G.
early childhood. A construct like SR, which (2015). Do Children’s Executive Functions
seems to heavily rely on cultural patterns accounts for association between early
of interactions, should change according to autonomy supportive parenting and achieve-
the interactional frame it which it develops. ment through High School. Journal of Edu-
Unveiling these differences and commonali- cational Psychology,107(3), 756–770. http://
ties will allow us to plan culturally sensitive dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000017
Blair, C., & A. Diamond. 2008. Biological Pro-
educational experiences allowing children to
cesses in Prevention and Intervention: The
have the best opportunities to develop SR abil-
Promotion of Self-Regulation as a Means of
ities. Given the importance of SR in the pre- Preventing School Failure. Development and
sent century and its relationship with learning Psychopathology. 20: 899–911.
and achievement, it must surely be a primary Blair, C. & Raver, C.C (2014). Closing the
aim to ensure that educational systems make achievement gap through modification of
their best effort to develop children’s self- neurocognitive and neuroendocrine func-
regulation from very early in life. tion: Results from a cluster randomized

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 548 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 SUPPORTING YOUNG CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION DEVELOPMENT 549

controlled trial of an innovative approach to York, N.Y.), 318(5855), 1387–1388. doi.

the education of children in kindergarten. org/10.1126/science.1151148.
PLoS ONE, 9(11), e112393. doi:10.137/jour- Dignath, C., Buttner, G., &Langfeld, H. P.
nal.pone.0112393. (2008). How Can Primary School Students
Blair, C. & Raver, C.C. (2015). School readiness Learn Self-Regulated Learning Strategies
and self-regulation: a developmental psycho- Most Effectively? A Meta-Analysis on Self-
biological approach. Annual Review of Psy- Regulation Training Programmes. Educa-
chology, 3(66) 711–73. doi: 10.1146/ tional Research Review, 3, 101–129. https://
annurev-psych-010814-015221. doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Dinsmore, D., Alexander, P &Loughlin, S. (2008)
Where we are today. International Journal of Focusingthe Conceptual Lens on Meta-
Educational Research 31(6), 445–457. cognition,Self-Regulation and Self-Regulated
DOI:10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00014-2 Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20
Brinck, I. &Liljenfors, R. (2013) The develop- (2008), pp. 391–409.
mental origin of metacognition. Infant and Donker, A., de Boer, H., Kostons, D., Dignath
Child Development, 22(1), 85–101. doi: -van Ewijk, C., & van der Werf, M. (2014).
10.1002/icd.1749. Effectiveness of self-regulated learning strat-
Bryce, D. &Whitebread, D. (2012) The develop- egies on academic performance: A meta-
ment of metacognitive skills: evidence from analysis. Educational Research Review, 11,
observational analysis of young children’s 1–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.11.002
behaviour during problem-solving. Metacog- Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R.A., Nyman, M., Bernz-
nition and Learning, 7(3), 197–217. weig, J. &Pinuelas, A. (1994). The relations
Cameron Ponitz, C. E., McClelland M. M., Mat- of emotionality and regulation to children’s
thews J. M., Morrison F. J. (2009). A struc- anger-related reactions. Child Development,
tured observation of behavioral self-regulation 65(1):109–28.
and its contribution to kindergarten out- Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky & Spinrad (2004)
comes. Developmental Psychology, 45, Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., &Spinrad, T. L.
605–619, 10.1037/a0015365 (2011). Effortful control: Relations with emo-
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., Lee, Y., & Lee, J. (2018). tion regulation, adjustment, and socialization
Why autonomy-supportive interventions in childhood. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister
work: Explaining the professional develop- (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research,
ment of teachers’ motivating style. Teaching theory, and applications (pp. 263–283). New
and Teacher Education, 69, 43–51. doi: York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
10.1016/j.tate.2017.09.022 Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cogni-
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once tive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–
and future discipline. Cambridge, MA, US: developmental inquiry. American
Harvard Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. http://dx.doi.
Cole, M., & Derry, J. (2005). We have met tech- org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
nology and it is us. In R. J. Sternberg & D. D. Fonagy, P. & Target, M. (2002). Early interven-
Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and Technology: tions and the development of self-regulation.
The Impact of Tools on the Nature and Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 22(3), 307–335.
Development of Human Abilities (pp. 209– Gagne, J. & Nwadinobi, O. (2018). Self-control
228). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Interventions that Benefit Executive Func-
Diamond, A. (1991). Neuropsychological tioning and Academic Outcomes in Early and
insights into the meaning of object concept Middle Childhood. Early Education and
development. In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.), Development. 971–987. https://doi.org/10.1080/
The epigenesis of mind: Essays on Biology 10409289.2018.1496721
and Cognition (pp. 67–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Gerardi-Caulton, G. (2000). Sensitivity to spa-
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. tial conflict and the development of self-
Diamond, A., Barnett, W.S., Thomas, J., and regulation in children 24–36 months of age.
Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program Developmental Science, 3(4), 397–404.
improves cognitive control. Science (New https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–7687.00134

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 549 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 550 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD

Gralinski, J. H., & Kopp, C. B. (1993). Everyday Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Topping, K.,
rules for behavior: Mothers’ requests to Christie, D., Livingston, K., Jessiman, E. and
young children. Developmental Psychology, Donaldson, C. (2007). Group work in ele-
29(3), 573–584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ mentary science: organizational principles
0012–1649.29.3.573 for classroom teaching. Learning and Instruc-
Grau, V. & Whitebread, D. (2012). Self and tion, 17, 549–563.
social regulation of learning during collabo- Iiskala, T., Vauras, M. & Lehtinen, E. (2004).
rative activities in the classroom: The inter- Socially-shared metacognition in peer learn-
play of individual and group cognition. ing? Hellenic Journal of Psychology 1(2),
Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 401–412 147–178.
Grau, V., Lorca; A. & Araya, C. (2016). Socially Järvelä, S. &Hadwin, A. (2013). New Frontiers:
shared regulation and quality of talk: age Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational
differences in collaborative group-work in Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.DOI:10.1080/
the classroom. 7th Biennial Meeting of the 00461520.2012.74800
EARLI-SIG16:Metacognition, Nijmegen, Jones, L., Rothbart, M. & Posner, M. (2003).
August 2016. Development of executive attention in pre-
Grau, V., Lorca, A., Araya, C., Urrutia, S., Ríos, school children. Developmental Science.
D., Montagna, P. &Ibaceta, M. (2018). Socially 6(5), 498–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Shared Regulation of Learning and Quality of 1467–7687.00307
Talk: Age Differences in Collaborative Group Kershner, R., Mercer N., Warwick, P &KleineStaar-
Work in Classroom Contexts. In V. Grau & D. man, J. (2010) Can the interactive white-
Whitebread (Eds.) Relationships between board support young children’s collaborative
Classroom Dialogue and Support for Meta- communication and thinking in classroom
cognitive, Self-regulatory Development in science activities? Computer-Supported Col-
Educational Contexts. New Dir Child Adolesc laborative Learning, 5, ps. 359–383.
Dev, 162, 1–28.doi: 10.1002/cad.20261. DOI 10.1007/s11412-010-9096-2
Hadwin, A., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Kochanska, G. (1995). Children’s tempera-
Self-Regulated, Co-Regulated, and Socially ment, mothers’ discipline, and security of
Shared Regulation of Learning. In B. Zimmer- attachment: Multiple pathways to emerging
man, & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of Self- internalization. Child Development, 66,
Regulation of Learning and Performance 597–615.
(pp. 65–84). New York: Routledge. Kochanska, G., Coy, K., & Murray, K. (2001).
Hadwin, A. & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, The development of self-regulation in the
co-regulation, and socially shared regulation: first four years of life. Child Development,
Exploring perspectives of social in self- 72(4), 1091–1111.
regulated learning theory. Teachers College Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T.,& Harlan, E.
Records, 113(2), 240–264. T.,(2000). Effortful control in early childhood:
Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects continuity and change, antecedents, and
of learning skills interventions on student implications for social development. Devel-
learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educa- opmental Psychology, 36(2), 220–32.
tional Research, 66(2), 99–136. Kopp, C.B. (1982). Antecedents of self-
Hembacher, E. &Ghetti, S. (2014) Don’t look at regulation: A developmental perspective.
my answer: subjective uncertainty underlies Developmental Psychology, 18, 199–214.
preschoolers’ exclusion of their least accurate Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and
memories. Psychological Science, 25(9): negative emotions: A developmental view.
1768–76. doi: 10.1177/0956797614542273. Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 343–354.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. Littleton, K. & Mercer, N. (2013) Interthinking:
B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J.,et al. Teach- putting talk to work. Abingdon: Routledge.
ing Mathematics in Seven Countries: Results Lockl, K. & Schneider, W. (2004). The effects of
From the TIMSS 1999 Video Study, (No. incentives and instruction on children alloca-
NCES 2003-013 Revised). U.S. Government tion of study time. European journal of
Printing Office, Washington, DC (2003) developmental psychology, 1(2), 153–165.

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 550 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 SUPPORTING YOUNG CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION DEVELOPMENT 551

Lyons, K.E.,&Ghetti, S.(2013). I don’t want to O’Leary, A. & Sloutsky, V. (2017). Carving
pick! Introspection on uncertainty supports Metacognition at Its Joints: Protracted Devel-
early strategic behavior. Child Development, opment of Component Processes. Child
84(2), 726–36. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12004. development, 88(3), 1015–1032.
McClelland, M. M., Geldhof, G. J., Cameron, Olson, D. R. (2003). Psychological theory and
C. E., &Wanless, S. B. (2015). Development educational reform: How school remakes
and self-regulation. In W. F. Overton, P. C. M. mind and society. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
Molenaar, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook bridge University Press.
of child psychology and developmental sci- Olson D.R. (2005). Technology and intelligence
ence: Theory and method (pp. 523–565). in a literate society. In R.J. Sternberg, D.D.
Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and Technology.
Mercer, N. (2013) Classroom talk and the devel- The impact of tools on the nature and devel-
opment of self-regulation and metacognition. opment of human abilities, Lawrence Erl-
In D. Whitebread, N. Mercer, C. Howe, & A. baum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 55–68.
Tolmie (Eds.), Self-regulation and dialogue in https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203824252
primary classrooms. British Journal of Educa- Olson, D. R., & Bruner, J. S. (1996). Folk psy-
tional Psychology Monograph Series II: Psy- chology and folk pedagogy. In D. R. Olson &
chological Aspects of Education — Current N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of educa-
Trends, Nº 10 (pp. 1–24). Leicester: BPS. tion and human development: New models
Mercer, N. & Howe, C. (2012) Explaining the of learning, teaching, and schooling (pp. 9–
dialogic processes of teaching and learning: 27). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
the value of sociocultural theory. Learning, Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially
Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 1,12–21 shared regulation of learning: A review.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. And Dawes, L. (1999) European Psychologist, 20(3), 190–203.
‘Children’s talk and the development of rea- doi:10.1027/1016–9040/a000226.
soning in the classroom’, British Educational Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom appli-
Research Journal. 25(1): 95–113. ISSN 0141 cations of research on self-regulated learning.
1926 Educational Psychologist, 36, 89–101.
Metcalfe, J. & Finn, B. (2013). Metacognition https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4
and control of study choice in children. Paris, S. G., &Winograd, P. (1999). The role of
Metacognition and Learning, 8(1), 19–46. self-regulated learning in contextual teaching:
Meuwissen, A.S & Carlson, S.M. (2015). Fathers Principles and practices for teacher prepara-
matter: The role of father parenting in pre- tion. Contextual teaching and learning: Pre-
schoolers’ executive function development. paring teachers to enhance student success in
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, the workplace and beyond (Information
140(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.010 Series No. 376). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clear-
Miyake, A., Friedman, N.P., Emerson, M.J., inghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational
Witzki, A.H., Howerter, A., & Wager, TD. Education; Washington, DC: ERIC Clearing-
(2000). The unity and diversity of executive house on Teaching and Teacher Education.
functions and their contributions to complex Paulus, M., Tsalas, N., Proust, J. &Sodian, B. (2014).
‘Frontal Lobe’ tasks: a latent variable analy- Metacognitive monitoring of oneself and others:
sis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. developmental changes during childhood and
Montroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., Skibbe, L. E., McClel- adolescence. J Exp Child Psychol.122:153–65.
land, M. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2016). The doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.12.011.
development of self-regulation across early Perry, N. E. (2013). Understanding classroom pro-
childhood. Developmental Psychology, 52(11), cesses that support children’s self-regulation of
1744–1762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ learning. In D. Whitebread, N. Mercer, C.
dev0000159 Howe, & A. Tolmie (Eds.), Self-regulation and
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, dialogue in primary classrooms. British Journal
and Medicine (2018). How People Learn II: of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II:
Learners, Contexts and Cultures. Washing- Psychological Aspects of Education — Current
ton DC: The National Academies Press Trends, Nº 10 (pp. 45–68). Leicester: BPS.

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 551 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 552 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD

Pino-Pasternak, D., Basilio, M. &Whitebread, D. Rueda, M. R., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K.
(2014.). Interventions and Classroom Con- (2005). The development of executive atten-
texts That Promote Self-Regulated Learning: tion: contributions to the emergence of self-
Two Intervention Studies in United Kingdom regulation. Developmental Neuropsychology,
Primary Classrooms. Psykhe, 23(2), DOI: 28(2):573–94.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7764/psykhe.23.2.739 Schneider, W., Vise, M., Lockl, K., & Nelson,
Pino-Pasternak, D. &Whitebread, D. (2010) The T.O. (2000). Developmental Trends in chil-
role of parenting in children’s self-regulated dren’s memory monitoring: evidence from a
learning. Educational Research Review, 5, judgement-of-learning task. Cognitive Devel-
220–242. opment, 15, 115–134.
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (1998). Atten- Segretin, M.S., Hermida, M.J., Prats, L., Fracchia,
tion, self-regulation and consciousness. Phil- C., Ruetti, E., &Lipina, S. (2014). Childhood
osophical transactions of the Royal Society of Poverty and Cognitive Development in Latin
London. Series B, Biological sciences, America in the 21st Century, New Directions
353(1377), 1915–27. for Child and Adolescent Development
Preiss, D.D. (2010). Folk pedagogy and cultural 152(152):9–29. DOI:10.1002/cad.20162
markers in teaching: three illustrations from Shamir, A., Mevarech, Z., Gida, C. (2009). The
Chile In D.D. Preiss & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Inno- assessment of meta-cognition in different con-
vations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives texts: individualized vs. peer assisted learning.
on teaching, learning and human development Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 47–61.
(pp. 325–355). New York: Springer. Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M.,
Raver, C., Jones, S., Li-Grining, C., Solomon, B., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy
Zhai, U. &Metzgwe, M. (2009). Targeting Chil- in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage
dren’s Behavior Problems in Preschool Class- student decision making and ownership. Edu-
rooms: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. cational Psychologist, 39, 97–110. https://doi.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_2
77(2):302–16. DOI: 10.1037/a0015302 Sternberg, R. (Ed.) (2018). The nature of
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a control- human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge
ling motivating style toward students and how University Press.
they can become more autonomy supportive. Stigler, J.W., Gallimore, R., & Hiebert, J. (2000).
Educational Psychologist, 44, 159–175. https:// Using video surveys to compare classrooms
doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990 and teaching across cultures: Examples and
Reeve, J. & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say lessons from the TIMSS video studies. Educa-
and do to support students’ autonomy tional Psychologist, 35, pp. 87–100.
during a learning activity. Journal of Educa- Stigler J.W., Gonzales P., Kawanaka T., Knoll S.,
tional Psychology, 98, 209–218. https://doi. Serrano A. (1999). The TIMSS Videotape Class-
org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209 room Study: methods and findings from an
Roebers, C. M. (2017). Executive function and exploratory research project on eighth-grade
metacognition: Towards a unifying frame- mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan,
work of cognitive self-regulation. Develop- and the United States (Research and Develop-
mental review, 45, pp. 31–51. Elsevier ment Report No. NCES 1999–074). U.S. Gov-
10.1016/j.dr.2017.04.001 ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C
Roebers, C., Krebs, S. & Roderer, R. (2014), Stigler J.W. & Hiebert J.(1999). The Teaching
Metacognitive monitoring and control in Gap. Best ideas from the world’s teachers for
elementary school children: Their interrela- improving education in the classroom. The
tions and their role for test performance. Free Press, New York.
Learning and Individual Differences, 29, DOI: Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne,
10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.003 T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and
Rothbart, M. K., Ellis L. K., Rueda M. R., & sharing intentions: The origins of cultural
Posner M. I.(2003). Developing mechanisms cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
of temperamental effortful control. Journal 28(05), 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1017/
of Personality, 71(6), 1113–1143. S0140525X05000129

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 552 01/04/19 10:10 AM

 SUPPORTING YOUNG CHILDREN’S SELF-REGULATION DEVELOPMENT 553

Tomasello, M., Kruger, A. C., & Ratner, H. H. Whitebread, D., Anderson, H., Coltman, P., Page,
(1993). Cultural learning. Behavioral and C., Pino Pasternak, D., & Mehta, S. (2005).
Brain Sciences, 16(03), 495–511. https://doi. Developing independent learning in the early
org/10.1017/S0140525X0003123X years. Education 3–13, 1, 40–50, https://doi.
Upshur, C., Wenz-Gross, M. & Reed, G. (2013). org/10.1080/03004270585200081
A Pilot Study of a Primary Prevention Curric- Whitebread, D., Bingham, S., Grau, V., Pino-
ulum to Address Preschool Behavior Prob- Pasternak, D. & Sangster, C. (2007) Develop-
lems. Journal of Primary Prevention, 34(5), ment of Metacognition and Self-Regulated
309–327. doi:10.1007/s10935-013-0316-1 Learning in Young Children: Role of Collabora-
Valcan, D., Davis, H. and Pino-Pasternak, D. (2018). tive and Peer-Assisted Learning. Journal of
Parental Behaviour Predicting Early Childhood Cognitive Education and Psychology, 6(3), 433–
Executive Function: a Meta-Analysis. Educa- 455. doi: 10.1891/194589507787382043
tional Psychology Review, 30(3), 607–649. Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pino Pasternak, D.,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9411-9 Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., Almeqdad,
Vallotton, C. &Ayoub, C. (2011). Use Your Q. &Demetriou, D. (2009) The development of
Words: The Role of Language in the Devel- two observational tools for assessing metacog-
opment of Toddlers’ Self-Regulation, Early nition and self-regulated learning in young chil-
Childhood Research Quarterly 26(2):169– dren, Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 63–85
181. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.09.002 Whitebread, D. & Pino-Pasternak, D. (2013).
Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. (2010). Video analysis of self-regulated learning in
Development of Metacognitive Skillfulness: social and naturalistic contexts: The case of
A Longitudinal Study. Learning and Individ- preschool and primary school children. S.
ual Differences, 20, 220–224. http://dx.doi. Volet & M. Vauras (Eds) Interpersonal Regu-
org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.11.005 lation of Learning and Motivation: Methodo-
Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). logical Advances. Routledge.
Relation between Intellectual and Metacog- Whitebread, D., Pino-Pasternak, D. & Coltman,
nitive Skills: Age and Task. Learning and P. (2015). Making Learning Visible: the role
Individual Differences, 15, 159–176. of language in the development of metacog-
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The nition and self-regulation in young children.
development of higher psychological func- In S. Robson & S. Quinn (Eds.). The Rout-
tions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ledge International Handbook of Young Chil-
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N. and L. Dawes (1998) Soft- dren’s Thinking and Understanding
ware Design to Support Discussion in the Pri- (pp. 199–214). London: Routledge.
mary Classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Williams, J. P., & Atkins, J. G. (2009). The role
Learning. 14(3): 199–211. ISSN 0266-4909 of metacognition in teaching reading com-
Weiland, C. & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of prehension to primary students. In D.J.
a Prekindergarten Program on Children’s Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.),
Mathematics, Language, Literacy, Executive Handbook of metacognition in education
Function, and Emotional Skills. Child Devel- (pp. 26–43). New York, NY: Routledge.
opment, 84(6), 2112–2130. https://doi.org/ Winne, P. H., Hadwin, A. F., & Perry, N. E. (2013).
10.1111/cdev.12099 Metacognition and computer-supported col-
Welsh, M. C., & Pennington, B. F. (1988). laborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A.
Assessing frontal lobe functioning in children: Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.),
Views from developmental psychology. Devel- Educational psychology handbook series.
opmental Neuropsychology, 4, 199–230. The international handbook of collaborative
doi:10.1080/87565648809540405 learning (pp. 462–479). New York, NY, US:
Whitebread, D. (2014). The importance of self- Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
regulation for learning from birth. In H. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.).
Moylett (Ed.). Characteristics of Effective (2011). Educational psychology handbook
Learning: helping young children become series. Handbook of self-regulation of learn-
learners for life (pp. 15–35). Maidenhead: ing and performance. New York, NY, US:
Open University Press. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

BK-SAGE-WHITEBREAD_ET_AL-190075-Chp30.indd 553 01/04/19 10:10 AM