See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233093312

A Longitudinal Study of Self-regulation in Children's Musical Practice

Article  in  Music Education Research · September 2001

DOI: 10.1080/14613800120089232

CITATIONS READS

105 157

2 authors, including:

Gary E. McPherson
University of Melbourne
128 PUBLICATIONS   2,054 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pedagogical Development of Performance Skills in Music Lessons View project

Optimising Musical Expertise View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gary E. McPherson on 15 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [The University Of Melbourne Libraries]
On: 14 February 2014, At: 16:23
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Music Education Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmue20

A Longitudinal Study of Self-

regulation in Children's Musical
Practice
Gary E. McPherson & James M. Renwick
Published online: 19 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Gary E. McPherson & James M. Renwick (2001) A Longitudinal Study
of Self-regulation in Children's Musical Practice, Music Education Research, 3:2, 169-186,
DOI: 10.1080/14613800120089232

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14613800120089232

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed
in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,
claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
 forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014
 Music Education Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2001

A Longitudinal Study of Self-regulation in

Children’s Musical Practice
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

GARY E. MCPHERSON & JAMES M. RENWICK, The University of New South

Wales, Sydney, Australia (E-mail: G.McPherson@unsw.edu.au)

ABSTRACT This study investigates common trends and individual differences in chil-
dren’s practice according to six dimensions of self-regulation. Seven children, aged
between 7 and 9 years at the beginning of the study, regularly videotaped their practice
over a 3-year period. Behavioural coding addressed the content of practice, the nature
of errors and off-task behaviours, and the interaction of family members. Low levels of
self-regulatory behaviour, as evidenced in the children’s ability to monitor and control
their own learning, were found during practice. Learning strategies were conŽ ned
almost exclusively to playing through pieces once or twice. Most errors were either
ignored or corrected by repeating one or two notes. Results show that self-regulatory
processes vary widely between students, even from the very early stages of musical
development, and help to explain why some learners develop their performance skills
quickly while others struggle. Implications for music education and future research are
discussed.

Introduction
Because practice is essential for successful learning on a musical instrument, it is the
focus of attention for a number of music psychologists (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-
Römer, 1993; Slododa, Davidson, Howe & Moore, 1996). One of the most discussed
aspects concerns deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., 1993), a term used to describe
goal-oriented, structured and effortful facets of practice in which motivation, resources
and attention determine the amount and quality of practice undertaken. Studies show that
a major characteristic of expert musicians is the amount of deliberate practice they have
undertaken during the many years required to develop their skills to a high level
(Ericsson, 1997). Expert musicians exert a great deal more effort and concentration
during their practice than less skilled musicians, and are more likely to monitor and
control their playing by focusing their attention on what they are practising and how it
can be improved.
ISSN 1461-380 8 print; ISSN 1469-9893 online/01/020169-1 8 Ó 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1461380012008923 2
 170 G. E. McPherson & J. M. Renwick

From a somewhat different perspective, Sloboda and Davidson (1996) contrast formal
and informal aspects of practice. They found that high-achieving musicians tend to do
signiŽ cantly greater amounts of formal practice, such as scales, pieces and technical
exercises, than their less successful peers. High achievers are also likely to report more
informal practice, such as playing their favourite pieces by ear, ‘messing about’, or
improvising. Sloboda and Davidson conclude that these informal ways of practising
contribute to musical success because the highest achieving students are able to Ž nd the
right balance between freedom and discipline in their practice. Similarly, in a study
designed to explore motivational and self-regulatory components of instrumental per-
formance, McPherson and McCormick (1999) identiŽ ed three aspects of practice. These
were deŽ ned as informal/creative activities (i.e. playing by ear and improvising for one’s
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

own enjoyment); repertoire (i.e. learning new pieces and performing older familiar
pieces); and technical work (i.e. using a warm-up routine; practising scales, arpeggios,
and études; and sight-reading music). Results showed that the amount of time students
report practising in each of these three areas was signiŽ cantly related to the quality of
their cognitive engagement during practice and also to how much they reported enjoying
playing their instrument. Students who undertook higher levels of practice were more
likely to rehearse music in their minds and to make critical ongoing judgements
concerning the success or otherwise of their efforts. They were also more capable of
organising their practice in ways that provided for efŽ cient learning, such as practising
the pieces that needed most work and isolating difŽ cult sections of a piece that needed
further reŽ nement. These results suggest that students who are more cognitively engaged
while practising not only tend to do more practice, but enjoy learning more and are also
more efŽ cient in their work.
In the last decade, a body of observational research on expert practising has emerged
(Hallam, 1995; Miklaszewski, 1989; Nielsen, 1999). This work has analysed experts’
highly developed use of learning strategies. These strategies include (a) the manipulation
of the speed of a work and the size of repeated material, depending on its familiarity and
complexity; (b) the creation of dependable motor programmes through adherence to
consistent technical plans such as Ž ngerings; and (c) the use of musical structure to
facilitate memorisation (ChafŽ n & Imreh, 1997). Other observational research has
compared novices with experts to investigate the gradual emergence of such strategies
over time (Gruson, 1988; Williamon & Vallentine, 2000).
In contrast to these expertise-oriented perspectives, musical practice can also be
studied in terms of the self-regulated processes that students use to become more
proŽ cient on their instrument. For many schoolchildren, practice plays a role that is close
to homework (Xu & Corno, 1998). Effective practice, like efŽ cient homework, requires
self-regulation, which is evident when students are ‘metacognitively, motivationally, and
behaviorially active participants in their own learning process’ (Zimmerman, 1986,
p. 308). In this conception, self-regulation is not seen as a Ž xed characteristic, but rather
as a set of context-speciŽ c processes that students select from in order to accomplish a
task (Zimmerman, 1998). The degree to which these self-regulatory processes are
employed by students depends on six dimensions, which appear to be consistent across
a range of diverse disciplines such as music, sport and academic learning (Zimmerman,
1994, 1998). Reinterpreted for musical practice, these dimensions incorporate:

1. Motive—feeling free to and capable of deciding whether to practise.

2. Method—planning and employing suitable strategies when practising.
3. Time—consistency of practice and time management.
 Self-regulation in children’s musical practice 171

4. Performance outcomes—monitoring, evaluating and controlling performance.

5. Physical environment—structuring the practice environment (e.g. away from distrac-
tions).
6. Social factors—actively seeking information that might assist (e.g. from another
family member, teacher, practice diary or method book).

We consider this self-regulatory perspective to be particularly attractive. Not only does

it enable us to clarify key processes involved in efŽ cient musical practice and to compare
these with other disciplines, but it may lead to a more complete understanding of musical
learning with implications for optimising practice. Consequently, it is in this perspective
that the present study is grounded .
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

Background to the Study

So far, most research has concentrated on deŽ ning the processes that lead to expert
performance, often through the use of retrospective accounts and studies in which
performers are asked to prepare assigned pieces for a formal performance. Relatively
little research has studied practice in naturalistic settings, free of restrictions imposed by
researchers. Another gap in the existing literature concerns the very beginning stages of
learning an instrument and particularly what young children actually do when practising
their instrument at home. To expand knowledge in this area, we analysed videotapes of
children’s home practice using a procedure that attempted to make our observations as
‘normal’ and therefore as ecologically valid as possible. Data we obtained from the
analyses of these videos were used to supplement information obtained from regular,
detailed interviews with a larger sample of 157 children in eight primary schools who
started learning their instrument in school in grades 3 or 4. Data were also gained from
interviews with their mothers, classroom teachers and instrumental teachers. Our purpose
was to synthesise Ž ndings from the larger sample of interview data with new information
obtained from analysing children’s videotaped practice, in a way that would shed light
on the self-regulatory processes outlined earlier.

Procedure
At the beginning of the study all the 157 children and their parents were invited to
participate in the videotaping of practice, and 27 families agreed. Before the taping
commenced, the parents and children were interviewed in order to explain the purpose
of the study. This preliminary brieŽ ng stressed the need to ensure that the home practice
sessions should be as normal as possible, and representative of how each child generally
practised his or her instrument. After viewing all videotapes, seven children (three
females and four males) between the ages of 7 and 9 were selected for the analysis
reported here. The rest were excluded because they were irregular with videotaping of
practice or because the child’s behaviour appeared to be unduly in uenced by the
recording situation. Two were complete novices, three had learnt another instrument
(either piano or violin), which they stopped playing before joining the school instrumen-
tal programme, and two were continuing to play piano while beginning their new band
instrument. The sample consisted of two trumpets, two clarinets, and one  ute, saxo-
phone and cornet. In this article, each participant is referred to by their instrument and
gender (e.g. the female clarinettist is labelled ‘Female Clarinet’).
 172 G. E. McPherson & J. M. Renwick

Two practice sessions were selected for analysis for each of the seven children
participating in year 1, and these were compared with two sessions for each of the Ž ve
children who continued through to year 3. They were coded using the software package,
The Observer (Noldus, Trienes, Hendriksen, Jansen & Jansen, 2000), which allows the
researcher to play the videotape at various speeds through a computer interface, and to
use various ‘channels’ to code behaviour. This process provides highly rigorous data that
can be revisited by repeatedly viewing the videotape, although this rigor comes at a high
cost in terms of research time: a 10-minute practice session can take up to 5 hours to
code.
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

Results and Discussion

Results for the analyses can be discussed according to the six self-regulatory processes
as deŽ ned by Zimmerman (1994, 1998; see also McPherson & Zimmerman, in press).

Motive
To understand this dimension of self-regulation, it is necessary to examine the degree to
which the children feel free to and capable of deciding whether or not to practise. Results
from interviews before the children commenced lessons (McPherson, 2000) show that
they were able to differentiate between their interest in learning a musical instrument; the
importance to them of being good at music; whether they thought their learning would
be useful to their short- and long-term goals; and also the cost of their participation in
terms of the effort needed to continue improving. Before joining the instrumental
programmes, the children were asked how long they expected to continue learning their
instrument. These initial motives and expectations for learning, coupled with how much
practice they undertook, provided a powerful predictor of their subsequent achievement
9 months later (McPherson, 2000). Children who made the least progress tended to
express more extrinsic reasons for learning, such as being part of the school band
because their friends were also involved. In contrast, children who made rapid progress
were more likely to express intrinsic reasons, such as always having liked music or
wanting to play particular pieces for their own personal enjoyment.
A case study of one of the children involved in the present study (Renwick &
McPherson, 2000) also revealed a strong effect of intrinsic interest in a particular
repertoire on the degree of her self-regulation. When practising repertoire that she
selected and wanted to learn herself, this young learner displayed a higher level of
cognitive engagement and was markedly more efŽ cient and persistent with her efforts.
This Ž nding suggests that young music learners who are motivated by a personal rather
than an externally driven desire to learn, will be more likely to engage in the types of
self-regulatory behaviour that enhance their achievement.

Method
The method dimension focuses on how the children practised, in terms of the types of
strategies they adopt. Statistics generated by The Observer revealed that almost all of the
children’s practice consisted of simply playing the piece through without any other
strategy being used (see Table 1—year 1: 94.1%; year 3: 95.3%). However, as shown
in Table 1, differences between players can be observed. Four of the players ac-
companied their playing with body-movements, mostly foot-tapping, in year 1, but only
 Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

TABLE 1. Percentage of practice time spent using various strategies

Year 1 Year 3

Participant Playing only Moving Counting Thinking Singing Fingering Playing only Moving Counting Thinking Singing Fingering

Female Flute 94.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Male Trumpet 1 93.4 0.0 2.8 3.0 0.8 0.0 85.3 8.9 0.0 2.8 3.2 0.0
Male Trumpet 2 99.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.9 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0
Female Clarinet 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 94.8 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.8 1.2
Male Saxophone 91.1 7.9 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 99.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Male Clarinet 91.0 1.6 7.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 — — — — — —
Female Cornet 90.8 9.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 — — — — — —
Mean 94.1 3.5 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 95.3 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.8 0.3

Percentages were analysed according to the amount of time spent practising, as measured from the Ž rst to last note of each practice session.
Self-regulation in children’s musical practice
173
 174 G. E. McPherson & J. M. Renwick

TABLE 2. Time spent practisin g by run-through

Run-through

Year 1 Year 3

Participant First Second Third–Ž fth First Second Third–Ž fth

Female Flute 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Male Trumpet 1 73.5 10.3 16.2 83.4 16.6 0.0
Male Trumpet 2 100.0 0.0 0.0 88.6 11.4 0.0
Female Clarinet 100.0 0.0 0.0 96.3 2.4 1.3
Male Saxophone 91.3 8.7 0.0 91.1 7.6 1.3
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

Male Clarinet 88.2 10.9 0.9 — — —

Female Cornet 77.1 22.9 0.0 — — —
Mean 90.0 7.5 2.5 91.9 7.6 0.5

A run-throug h was deŽ ned as the number of times the participan t played the item in the present
practice session all the way to the end (e.g. Second indicates that the participan t has alread y reached
the end of the item and this is the second run-through) .

one of the players employed this strategy in year 3. Four of the children, notably the
Male Clarinet, spent time introducing a piece by counting the beat aloud, but this
behaviour had disappeared by year 3. Other strategies such as thinking (i.e. silent
inspection of the music), singing and silent Ž ngering each accounted for an average of
less than 2% of the total time in both years. No evidence of chanting or using a
metronome was observed.
Interviews with the instrumental music teachers revealed that the standard advice
about practice given to the students was to work for 15–20 minutes, 5 days per week,
and that this should consist of repeating pieces and exercises until a degree of  uency
is reached. Contrary to this advice, the vast majority (year 1: 90%; year 3: 91.9%) of
their playing time was spent playing through a piece or exercise only once (see Table
2). Although the children would occasionally stop and repeat a small section after an
error, as soon as they Ž nally reached the end of the piece they seemed content to move
on to another task. This trend was relatively stable across the 3 years. As a result, there
was virtually no evidence of the deliberate practice strategies that are typical of expert
musicians.
We speculate that this Ž nding helps to explain one aspect of why beginning
instrumentalists practise less than at later stages in their development (McPherson,
1993). Because they have not assimilated the types of strategies that lead to more
effective self-evaluation and monitoring of their own progress (Hallam, 1997, 2001;
Pitts, Davidson & McPherson, 2000), they simply ‘run out of pieces’ to work on. Most
importantly, however, our results provide evidence that young players take years to
assimilate the types of strategies that lead to effective self-regulation of their own
progress.

Time
How children plan and manage their time has important implications for how efŽ cient
their practice will be. In year 1, 72.9% of the students’ observed videotaped practice was
spent playing their instrument. This percentage rose to 84.1% by year 3, suggesting that
these Ž ve participants were beginning to spend their time more efŽ ciently. As shown in
 Self-regulation in children’s musical practice 175

Table 3 the vast majority of this playing time was spent on repertoire (year 1: 84.5%;
year 3: 92.6%) with approximately equal time spent on ensemble parts and solo pieces.
Technical work (scales and arpeggios) took up the remainder of playing time (year 1:
15.2%; year 3: 7.4%), while the presence of informal practice (playing by ear,
improvising, and playing from memory) was negligible. This pedagogically unbalanced
‘diet’ (McPherson, 1998) is surprising, and reveals that the informal practice found by
Sloboda et al. (1996) in more experienced young musicians had not yet emerged in this
group of beginners.
The remainder of the children’s practice time was spent on non-playing activities (year
1: 27.1%; year 3: 15.9%). These activities show an interesting pattern of change with
skill acquisition. Time spent looking for printed music to play rose from 44.7% of
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

non-practising time in year 1 to 75.8% in year 3. Time spent talking or being spoken to
fell from 32.4% in year 1 to only 7.7% in year 3, mostly as a factor of the reduced
presence of other people in the room in the later sessions. Between year 1 and year 3,
day-dreaming fell from 4.1% to 2.6% of non-playing time, responding to distractions fell
from 3.8% to 1.7% and outward expressions of frustration fell from 3.0% to 0.9%. Time
spent resting between pieces rose from 2.5% of non-practising time in year 1 to 5.6%
in year 3, possibly as a factor of the longer and more demanding pieces played at this
stage.
Table 3 also reveals marked differences between individuals. For example, in year 1,
the least efŽ cient learner (Male Clarinet) spent only 56.6% of his time actually play-
ing, while the most efŽ cient learner (Male Saxophone) spent 82.3% of his time
practising. Research in academic subjects shows that many children actively avoid
studying or use less time than allocated (Zimmerman & Weinstein, 1994). This was
also true in our analysis of the children’s practice. With the Male Clarinet, 21.5%
of his total session time was spent talking with his mother about his practice
tasks in a highly diffused manner, where the child’s repeated errors became the
primary focus and a source of considerable frustration. With some children, there
was a high level of reference to the time, with frequent behaviours such as calling out
to a parent to ask if they were ‘allowed to stop yet.’ For our sample it appears that
a minimum time limit for practice was often enforced, yet the efŽ cient use of that time
was not.
By year 3, all Ž ve remaining subjects were spending more than 75% of their sessions
actually playing, although some tended to display more instances of avoidance strategies
such as talking with another family member, Ž ddling with their instrument and
day-dreaming, compared to their peers. This was particularly evident in the results for
our Male Trumpet 1, who spent less time playing than his peers, and also a larger
proportion of his actual practice sessions Ž ddling with his instrument, day-dreaming,
being distracted, and expressing frustration.
These results reinforce how subtle differences in students’ practice habits can
impact on their progress and ability to self-regulate, especially during the begin-
ning stages of musical development. For example, examination of the students’
results on the Watkins–Farnum Performance Scale (Watkins & Farnum, 1954),
a standardised measure of performance achievement, shows that the Male Trumpet 1
made the least progress on his instrument when tested at the end of year 3. As
an indication of the enormous difference that emerged between players, this young
learner had reached the standard of playing which many of his peers had reached by
the end year 1.
 Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014
176

TABLE 3. Contents of practice expressed as a percentage of time spent practising or time spent not practising

Year 1 Year 3

Contents of practice Mean FClr FCor FFlt MClr MSax MTr1 MTr2 Mean FClr FFlt MSax MTr1 MTr2

Total time practisinga 72.9 79.9 74.3 72.8 56.6 82.3 71.9 72.7 84.1 85.1 90.0 87.7 75.9 82.0
Repertoireb 84.5 81.6 84.6 50.4 88.0 95.4 98.0 93.2 92.6 91.6 94.9 93.6 100.0 83.0
Technical workb 15.2 18.4 15.4 49.6 9.4 4.6 2.0 6.8 7.4 8.4 5.1 6.4 0.0 17.0
Informal practiceb 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total time not practisingc 27.1 20.1 25.7 27.2 43.4 17.7 28.1 27.4 15.9 14.9 10.0 12.3 24.1 18.0
Find exercised 44.7 36.3 52.4 94.4 16.1 81.8 18.8 41.9 75.8 94.2 95.5 82.4 54.7 73.1
G. E. McPherson & J. M. Renwick

Talkd 32.4 63.7 40.4 2.9 49.5 1.7 14.3 42.4 7.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 20.6 6.3
Fiddle with instrumentd 9.6 0.0 2.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 57.1 1.1 5.8 0.0 2.6 4.5 8.6 9.6
Restingd 2.5 0.0 1.4 2.7 4.8 0.0 1.2 4.5 5.6 5.8 0.0 13.0 0.0 11.0
Day-dreamingd 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 2.8 4.8 2.6 0.0 1.9 0.0 7.7 0.0
Distracted d 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 16.5 5.8 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0
Frustrationd 3.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0
a
Time spent on repertoire, technical work, or informal practice from the Ž rst note played to the last note played in the session.
b
As a percentage of total time spent practising.
c
Time not spent on repertoire, technical work, or informal practice from the Ž rst note played to the last note played.
d
As a percentage of total time spent not practising.
FCr, Female clarinet; FCor, Female cornet; FFlt, Female  ute; MClr, Male clarinet; MSax, Male Saxophone; MTr1, Male trumpet 1; MTr2, Male trumpet 2.
 Self-regulation in children’s musical practice 177

Performance Outcomes
A typical self-regulated approach to practice involves an ability to react by modifying
and adapting one’s playing based on the feedback obtained when performing. We chose
to assess this type of performance outcome by analysing the nature of the children’s
errors (cf. Palmer & Drake, 1997; Drake & Palmer, 2000).
Our seven children fell into three clear groups concerning prior learning, and these
corresponded clearly to their ability to monitor their playing. The Female Flute and Male
Saxophone had previously learned piano, and were continuing on this instrument as well
as learning their new band instrument. They made an average of 2.6 errors per minute
in year 1 (see Table 4). The Female Cornet, Male Clarinet and Female Clarinet had
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

learned either piano or violin but ceased playing this instrument before taking up their
new band instrument. In year 1 these children made an average of 7.3 errors per minute.
The two trumpeters, who had not previously learned an instrument, made too many
errors to count, and were eliminated from the analysis shown in Table 4 because their
pitching was too inaccurate. Using aural analysis alone meant that only the clearer
pitching of the beginner woodwind instruments and the cornet could be reliably assessed.
The analysis shown in Table 4 therefore only includes children with prior experience in
learning another instrument, and for whom reading had become to a certain extent
automatised. As the results show, many of the pitch errors made by the children in the
Ž rst year of learning were ignored, which points to a general inability of these young
learner to correct their performances based on the feedback they received while playing.
It is interesting to compare the total errors per minute and the ignored errors per
minute for the two participants with the highest (Female Cornet) and lowest (Male
Saxophone) error rates in year 1 (see Table 4). While our Female Cornet player made
many more errors than our Male Saxophone, she also ignored a far higher proportion of
these errors. Our Male Saxophone’s regulation of his own accuracy was remarkable in
year 1 and also when we analysed his practice in year 3. Most notably, his rate of
improvement was very high on the second run-through of a piece: in year 1 his error rate
fell from 1.4 per min on the Ž rst run-through to 0.6 per min on the second run-through,
suggesting that he possessed an outstanding ability to retain a mental representation of
his performance between run-throughs , and to use this as a basis for learning from his
errors. In year 3, the same phenomenon prevailed with our Male Saxophone player.
Although the frequency of his errors had risen (year 1: 1.4/min; year 3: 6.7/min) because
of a steep increase in the difŽ culty of the repertoire he was playing, the error rate on the
second run-through of his practice was only 34% of that on the Ž rst. This is in sharp
contrast with our Female Cornet in year 1 and Female Clarinet in year 3, who actually
made more frequent errors on their second run-throughs .
In some cases (especially with the Female Cornet, the participant who ignored the
most errors), a number of ignored errors may have been ‘honest mistakes’, in the sense
that the children may have believed what they were playing was correct. The most
common ignored error was a failure to observe the key signature, and the children may
have believed that the wrong-soundin g note must be correct, because they were using
what they thought was the correct Ž ngering. An analogous situation is in faulty text
comprehension, where children fail to recognise contradictory ideas because they believe
printed material must be correct (Hacker, 1998).
Based on the above results, we believe that teachers should use a variety of techniques
during their lessons to encourage students to re ect on the accuracy of their perfor-
mances. For example, after completing a performance, students could be asked to
 Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014
178

TABLE 4. Distribution of errors per minute, year 1, according to Ž rst instrument status

Continuing Ž rst instrument?

No Yes

Female Male Female Female Male

Error category Cornet Clarinet Clarinet Flute Saxophone Mean
G. E. McPherson & J. M. Renwick

Total errors per minute 11.0 5.5 5.5 3.8 1.4 5.4
Ignored errors per minute 7.7 2.4 0.9 0.3 0.3 2.3
Repeat 1–2 notes after Ž nger error 0.7 0.3 1.3 2.2 0.4 1.0
Repeat 1–2 correct notes 0.6 0.4 2.2 0.6 0.1 0.8
Repeat . 2 notes after Ž nger error 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.6
Repeat . 2 correct notes 0.4 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4
Correct sound production error 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4
 Self-regulation in children’s musical practice 179

comment on how and in what ways they believe that their playing was correct or wrong
according to the printed notation. Armed with this information, a teacher can devise
strategies for making the identiŽ cation of performance errors more explicit by:
· demonstrating to the student how they played, as compared to how the piece should
sound;
· teaching them mental scripts to use before they commence playing, such as con-
sciously searching for and thinking about the time- and key-signatures;
· silently singing the melody of the opening phrase before playing to establish an
appropriate tempo and interpretation; and
· scanning the music to identify and rehearse separately possible obstacles (see further,
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

McPherson, 1994).
Another technique would be to ask students, periodically, to demonstrate how they
would practise those sections of a piece which they or their teacher believe would be
difŽ cult to master. Diagnosing not only where errors occur, but also how and why
students ignore problems or are unable to improve an inadequate performance, will place
teachers in a better position to tailor their teaching in ways that will help improve
individual students’ home practice habits.
In addition, careful viewings of the videotapes of the two trumpet players, who had
never learned an instrument before, demonstrated that these children had enormous
difŽ culty coordinating and monitoring their own playing. Such large differences in these
children’s ability to self-regulate the accuracy of their playing can partly be explained
by considering the enormous demands placed on working memory for children learning
to simultaneously read notation, manipulate the keys or valves on their instrument, and
adjust their embouchure according to aural feedback. The tradition from which these
students come places great importance on learning to read notation from the Ž rst lesson,
and for many of them, there is insufŽ cient opportunity to learn to associate their nascent
aural schemata with the notation. Our conclusion, based on repeated observation of these
two learners and other practice videos we collected of beginners with no previous
instrumental experience, shows that they would sometimes play new unfamiliar reper-
toire so slowly and hesitantly that they were no longer able to perceive the music they
were rehearsing as a complete phrase or melody. In such situations they appeared deaf
to the sound of what they were trying to play, because a majority of their cognitive
resources were devoted to decoding the notation at the expense of them being able to
listen to what they were trying to play. These results are in stark contrast to the most
accurate students in our study, who were relieved of this high cognitive load because
they had learned how to read music on another instrument before starting in the school
instrumental programme.
Table 5 shows the longitudinal changes for the three children (Female Clarinet,
Female Flute and Male Saxophone) whose year 3 errors were coded. After the 2-year
interval, the error rate had increased by 218% (i.e. average 3.6 errors per minute to
7.8 per minute), presumably because of the increased difŽ culty of the material. By year
3 their error proŽ les had changed in a somewhat unclear way. As would be expected
from previous research (Gruson, 1988; Hallam, 2001), there was now a trend to repeat
more than two notes after an error instead of one or two. Surprisingly, however, these
three children were more likely to ignore errors and less likely to repeat music unless
in response to an error. We speculate from these Ž ndings that these changes may be
partly explained by the large shift in instructional style that these children experienced,
with the group-centred method-book approach of year 1 shifting to a much more difŽ cult
 Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014
180

TABLE 5. Longitudinal change in error categories for years 1 and 3

Year 1 Year 3

Female Female Male Female Female Male

Flute Clarinet Saxophone Mean Flute Clarinet Saxophone Mean

Total errors per minute 3.8 5.5 1.4 3.6 6.7 7.7 9.0 7.8
G. E. McPherson & J. M. Renwick

Total ignored errors per minute 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.5 3.9 2.3 2.5 2.9
Percentage of errors by category
Repeat 1–2 notes after Ž nger error 58.3 23.4 27.3 36.3 24.0 17.2 35.7 25.6
Repeat 1–2 correct notes 16.7 39.4 9.1 21.7 11.0 9.2 5.4 8.6
Repeat . 2 notes after Ž nger error 8.3 12.8 9.1 10.1 5.0 22.9 28.7 18.9
Repeat . 2 correct notes 4.2 6.4 9.1 6.5 1.0 9.7 0.8 3.8
Correct sound production error 4.2 2.1 27.3 11.2 1.0 11.0 1.5 4.5
Ignore Ž nger error 8.3 15.9 18.1 14.2 40.0 26.9 27.9 31.6
Ignore sound production error 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 3.1 0.0 7.0
 Self-regulation in children’s musical practice 181

individual-centred approached aimed at the preparation of solo repertoire for formal

music examinations in year 3.
The large individual differences in the proportion of ignored errors suggest that
the practising tasks were far from being ideally tailored to the capabilities of each
child. The simple tunes set in year 1 were well below the level of challenge for the
Male Saxophone and Female Flute, given their experience with notation from their
prior and current piano lessons. Despite receiving individual tuition, these children
were required to practise music that was below their level of challenge. How-
ever, by year 3, these two higher-achieving children had been allowed to increase
considerably the difŽ culty of their tasks, which, in the case of the Male Saxophone,
was typical of students learning for 5–6 years. Accordingly, the error rate had
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

increased considerably by year 3 (178% for Female Flute and 628% for Male
Saxophone).
At the other end of the spectrum, our two trumpeters were extremely in-
accurate in Years 1 and 3—often showing no sign of noticing their errors. Most
of their errors were due to mispitching to the wrong note on the harmonic series,
which suggests that they were unable to verify the accuracy of their playing beyond
checking that they were using the correct Ž ngerings. By year 3, the rate of progress
enforced by band membership resulted in these boys struggling to practise music
that was beyond their ability, leading to obvious frustration and frequent examples
of giving up on a piece before it had been completed. These observations can be
considered in terms of  ow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991), which stresses the import-
ance to motivation of the balancing of skill and challenge in learning situations.
In music, O’Neill (1997) suggests that teachers need to provide tasks that are
difŽ cult enough to be challenging, but not so difŽ cult that they will cause frustration,
so that ‘children will value learning goals and respond by mastery behaviour’ (p. 66).
In terms of our two novice trumpeters this was clearly not the case, either in year 1 or
year 3.
Another pervasive feature of the error analysis was the variable quality of rhythmic
accuracy, which was so poor that we decided not to code rhythmic errors. For much
of the observed practice in year 1, our beginners’ approach was solely based on decod-
ing the pitch symbols in the notation and Ž nding the matching Ž ngerings: very little
attention was given to rhythm, and no strategies were used to address it beyond
the children counting themselves in. For most of the participants, it seems that only
prior familiarity with tunes such as Old Macdonald or the aural memory of their
teacher’s rendition guided their rhythmic accuracy. The large disparity between rhythmic
and pitch accuracy conŽ rms previous research with more advanced instrumental-
ists. McPherson (1994), for example, reports that intermediate and advanced level
students make three times more rhythmic errors than pitch errors, and explains this
Ž nding by suggesting that correct performance of a rhythm demands comprehension
of the notation. In contrast, players who are able to link pitches notated in a score
with their correct Ž ngerings can perform correctly even though they are not able
to hear the notated pitches in their mind. In addition, Barry (1992) found that novices
made no improvement in rhythmic accuracy or in ‘musicality’ during free practice,
although their playing improved considerably during supervised, structured practice.
The one instance in the present study where extended parental ‘teaching’ was observed
was with the Male Clarinet, where there was a far greater emphasis on rhythmic
accuracy.
 182 G. E. McPherson & J. M. Renwick

Physical Environment
Self-regulated learners are aware that their physical environment should be conducive to
efŽ cient learning. There was a wide range of locations chosen by the children for
practice, ranging from the privacy of a bedroom to a shared family space. Some children
would appear in different rooms in different sessions, suggesting that they were choosing
a quiet space according to the family situation on the day. This appeared to give the
children access to help from other family members when they needed it, but also meant
that some needed to spend some of their practice time coping with distractions from
siblings, pets or a television in the next room. Data obtained from both the videotaped
practice sessions and child/mother interviews shows that the physical environment was
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

mostly well-equipped with a music stand and an appropriate chair (only one child stood
while practising). However, differences between children were noticeable in the
videotapes of the 27 children whose practice we observed. One child practised (in his
pyjamas) while sitting cross-legged on his pillow with the bell of his trumpet resting on
the bed. Another trumpeter undertook most of his practice either squatting on the  oor
or laying back on a lounge chair. The poor posture of these young learners could be
contrasted with some of their peers, who were more capable of holding their instrument
correctly while sitting or standing with a straight back and suitable playing position. Our
analysis of the videotapes across the 3 years demonstrates that the way young learners
structure their physical environment does exert a powerful in uence on how quickly they
will develop skill on their instrument.

Social Factors
When faced with difŽ culties, self-regulated learners actively seek help from knowledge-
able others. The observation of family involvement reveals a rich pattern (see Table 6)
with a noticeable decline in the participation of parents between the Ž rst and third years
of learning. In year 1, one or both parents were present in the room for 65.2% of the
observed time. (This level of participation may have been affected by the role some
parents took in being a camera-operator.) This time spent in the practice room further
broke down into four parental behaviours: 9.3% involved a parent teaching the child (i.e.
taking a very active instructive role). Another 10.4% of parental involvement was
classiŽ ed as guiding (e.g. ‘What piece are you going to do Ž rst?’). Except for a small
amount of time where a parent was distracting the child, the remainder of the time
(79.6%) was spent listening less actively again. A large amount of maternal involvement
with some of the children consisted of bolstering motivation and delivering praise.
Discussion between parent and child about appropriate practising strategies was found in
only one participant (Male Clarinet), and this was highly argumentative—certainly
falling outside of the parental involvement that might be called autonomy-supportive
(Grolnick, Kurowski & Gurland, 1999). Nevertheless, by the third year of the study, a
higher level of autonomy was observed, with parents present in only 23.4% of the time,
and now almost exclusively in a half-listening but supportive capacity.
In year 1, Ž ve of the seven children showed high usage of a practice diary in which
the teacher had written down set tasks. The two trumpeters, who showed poor
monitoring of their errors, were not observed referring to a diary at all. By year 3, only
two children continued to refer to their diary, but this in no way would imply that the
other three children were capable of remembering what had been assigned by their
teacher.
 Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

TABLE 6. Parental behaviours as a percentage of total session time

Year 1 Year 3

Contents of practice Mean FClr FCor FFlt MClr MSax MTr1 MTr2 Mean FClr FFlt MSax MTr1 MTr2

Parent present 65.2 100.0 100.0 28.4 40.0 100.0 50.0 37.9 23.4 0.0 50.0 0.0 16.9 50.0
Parent teaching when present 9.3 0.0 2.1 0.0 62.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Parent guiding when present 10.4 27.0 11.6 0.0 2.8 3.2 0.0 28.4 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 3.0
Parent listening when present 79.6 73.0 85.9 97.3 34.2 96.1 99.4 71.6 53.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 70.6 97.0
Parent distracting when present 0.7 0.0 0.4 2.7 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0

FCr, Female clarinet; FCor, Female cornet; FFlt, Female  ute; MClr, Male clarinet; MSax, Male Saxophone; MTr1, Male trumpet 1; MTr2, Male trumpet 2.
Self-regulation in children’s musical practice
183
 184 G. E. McPherson & J. M. Renwick

Conclusions
Zimmerman (1998) concludes that the self-regulatory processes identiŽ ed here are
distinguishing characteristics of experts but that they can also be found, to a greater or
lesser extent, in the early stages of learning. It can therefore be speculated that musicians
who display these characteristics early in their development will be more likely to
practise harder and more efŽ ciently, express more conŽ dence about their own capacity
to learn, and be more likely to achieve at a higher level. Early results from our interview
and videotape research show that the practice habits of the children we studied varied
considerably and that there were important differences between them on each of the six
self-regulatory processes, even from the very earliest practice sessions. Not only did our
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

sample undertake different amounts of practice during the 3 years they were studied, but
there were also large individual differences in the quality of their practice, in terms of
the time they actually devote to playing, correcting problems and actively seeking to
improve their performance, even from the Ž rst weeks of learning.
Our results lead us to conclude that a majority of our learners possessed the will to
learn their instrument, but not necessarily the level of skill required to ensure efŽ cient
and effective practice. By this we mean that the young learners were typically excited
about learning their instrument and came to their learning as optimistic, keen partici-
pants. However, while their instrumental teachers were making them aware of what to
practise, many had very little idea of how to practise. An important implication therefore
is that teachers should spend time during their lessons demonstrating and modelling
speciŽ c strategies that their students can try when practising, such as how to correct or
prevent certain types of performance errors. However, such strategies will be ineffective
unless the learners also develop their capacity to monitor and control their own learning.
Consequently, teachers should also devise strategies whereby learners can be encouraged
to re ect on the adequacy of their own practice habits, and especially on how they might
invent better ways (such as self-re ective comments in their diaries) that will help them
practise more efŽ ciently. Our preliminary Ž ndings suggest that the skills of knowing how
to self-monitor, set goals and use appropriate strategies take time to develop in most
young children. Helping beginning instrumentalists to re ect on their own progress and
ability to employ self-regulatory processes may go some way to improving instrumental
instruction, especially for children who do not pick up these skills informally.
The results of this study, combined with the extensive body of evidence found in
academic learning, suggest that the six self-regulatory processes are used to greater or
lesser degrees in young musicians. Most importantly, our results indicate that these
differences emerge from the very Ž rst practice session and that they account for a large
part of a student’s subsequent progress. Further research currently being undertaken with
a larger sample of music students over a wider age range will shed further light on how
such processes develop into adolescence. SpeciŽ cally, our research with beginners is
attempting to clarify the extent to which higher- and lower-achieving learners differ in
their practice behaviour. However, on the available evidence, it seems clear that every
time a young musician self-initiates practice, consciously plans what to practise, chooses
to correct their performance, structures their learning environment or actively seeks
information from knowledgeable others, they come one step closer to reŽ ning the
self-regulatory processes that will eventually become automatised. For researchers, the
challenge involves expanding and clarifying these issues in a way that will provide
useful information that teachers can use to cater for the wide range of student abilities
that they encounter in their everyday teaching.
 Self-regulation in children’s musical practice 185

Acknowledgement
This research has been supported by a large Australian Research Council Grant (No.
A79700682) , awarded for 3 years in 1996.

REFERENCES
BARRY, N.H. (1992) The effects of practice strategies , individual differences in cognitive style, and
gender upon technica l accuracy and musicality of student instrumenta l performance, Psychology of
Music, 20, pp. 112–123.
CHAFFIN, R. & IMREH, G. (1997) “Pulling teeth and torture”: musical memory and problem solving,
Thinking and Reasoning, 3, pp. 315–336.
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

CSIKSZENTMIHALYI , M. (1991). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (New York: Harper
Collins).
DRAKE, C. & PALMER, C. (2000) Skill acquisitio n in music performance : relations between planning and
temporal control, Cognition, 74, pp. 1–32.
ERICSSON, K.A. (1997) Deliberate practice and the acquisition of expert performance : an overview , in:
H. JéRGENSEN & A.C. LEHMANN (Eds) Does Practice Make Perfect? Current Theory and Research on
Instrumenta l Music Practice (Oslo, Norges musikkhøgskole).
ERICSSON, K.A., KRAMPE, R.T. & TESCH-RÖMER, C. (1993) The role of deliberat e practice in the
acquisition of expert performance , Psychologica l Review, 100, pp. 363–406.
GROLNICK, W.S., KUROWSKI, C.O. & GURLAND, S.T. (1999) Family processes and the development of
children’s self-regulation , Educational Psychologist, 34, pp. 3–14.
GRUSON, L.M. (1988) Rehearsal skill and musical competence : does practice make perfect?, in: J.A.
SLOBODA (Ed.) Generative Processes in Music: the Psychology of Performance, Improvisation , and
Composition (Oxford, Clarendon Press).
HACKER, D.J. (1998) Self-regulated comprehensio n during normal reading, in: D.J. HACKER, J.
DUNLOVSKY & A.C. GRAESSER (Eds) Metacognitio n in Educationa l Theory and Practice (Mahwah,
NJ, Erlbaum).
HALLAM, S. (1995) Professiona l musicians’ approaches to the learning and interpretatio n of music,
Psychology of Music, 23, pp. 111–128.
HALLAM, S. (1997) Approache s to instrumental music practice of experts and novices: implication s for
education, in: H. JéRGENSEN & A.C. LEHMANN (Eds) Does Practice Make Perfect? Current Theory and
Research on Instrumenta l Music Practice (Oslo, Norges musikkhøgskole).
HALLAM, S. (2001) The developmen t of expertise in young musicians: strategy use, knowledge
acquisition and individua l diversity, Music Education Research, 3, pp. 7–23.
MCPHERSON, G.E. (1993) Factors and abilities in uencing the development of visual, aural and creative
performanc e skills in music and their educationa l implications , Dissertatio n Abstracts International ,
54, p. 1277A (University MicroŽ lms No. 9317278) .
MCPHERSON, G.E. (1994) Factors and abilities in uencing sightreadin g skill in music, Journal of
Research in Music Education, 42, pp. 217–231.
MCPHERSON, G.E. (1998) Music performance : providin g instructio n that is balanced , comprehensiv e and
progressive , in: C. VAN NIEKERK (Ed.) Conference Proceeding s of the 23rd Internationa l Society for
Music Education World Conference (Pretoria, University of South Africa).
MCPHERSON, G.E. (2000, July) Commitment and practice: key ingredient s for achievement during the
early stages of learning a musical instrument, Paper presented at the 24th Internationa l Society for
Music Education Research Commission, Salt Lake City, UT.
MCPHERSON, G.E. & MCCORMICK, J. (1999) Motivational and self-regulate d learning component s of
musical practice, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, pp. 98–102.
MCPHERSON, G.E. & ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (in press) Self-regulatio n of musical learning: a social cognitive
perspective , in: R. COLWELL (Ed.) Second Handbook on Music Teaching and Learning (New York,
Oxford University Press).
MIKLASZEWSKI , K. (1989) A case study of a pianist preparing a musical performance , Psychology of
Music, 17, pp. 95–109.
NIELSEN, S.G. (1999) Learning strategies in instrumenta l music practice, British Journal of Music
Education, 16, pp. 275–291.
NOLDUS, L.P.J.J., TRIENES, R.J.H., HENDRIKSEN, A.H.M., JANSEN, H. & JANSEN, R.G. (2000) The
Observer Video-Pro: new software for the collection , management, and presentatio n of time-structure d
 186 G. E. McPherson & J. M. Renwick

data from videotape s and digital media Ž les, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
32, pp. 197–206.
O’NEILL, S.A. (1997) The role of practice in children’s early musical performanc e achievement , in: H.
JéRGENSEN & A.C. LEHMANN (Eds) Does Practice Make Perfect? Current Theory and Research on
Instrumenta l Music Practice (Oslo, Norges musikkhøgskole).
PALMER, C. & DRAKE, C. (1997) Monitoring and planning capacitie s in the acquisition of music
performanc e skills, Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 5, pp. 369–384.
PITTS , S., DAVIDSON, J.W. & MCPHERSON, G.E. (2000) Developing effective practise strategies : case
studies of three young instrumentalists , Music Education Research, 2 (1), pp. 45–56.
RENWICK, J.M. & MCPHERSON, G.E. (2000) “I’ve got to do my scale Ž rst!”: a case study of a novice’s
clarinet practice, in: C. WOODS , G.B. LUCK, R. BROCHARD, F. SEDDON & J.A. SLOBODA (Eds) Proceed-
ings of the Sixth Internationa l Conference on Music Perception and Cognition [CD-ROM] (Keele,
UK, Keele University, Department of Psychology) .
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 16:23 14 February 2014

SLOBODA , J.A. & DAVIDSON, J.W. (1996) The young performing musician, in: I. DELIÈGE & J.A. SLOBODA
(Eds) Musical Beginnings : Origins and Development of Musical Competence (Oxford, Oxford
University Press).
SLOBODA , J.A., DAVIDSON , J.W., HOWE , M.J.A. & MOORE, D.G. (1996) The role of practice in the
development of performing musicians, British Journal of Psychology, 87, pp. 287–309.
WATKINS , J.G. & FARNUM, S.E. (1954) The Watkins–Farnum Performance Scale: A Standardize d
Achievement Test for All Band Instrument s (Winona, MN, Hal Leonard).
WILLIAMON , A. & VALENTINE , E. (2000) Quantity and quality of musical practice as predictor s of
performanc e quality, British Journal of Psychology, 91, pp. 353–376.
XU, J. & CORNO, L. (1998) Case studies of families doing third-grad e homework, Teachers College
Record, 100, pp. 402–436.
ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (1986) Becoming a self-regulate d learner: which are the key subprocesses ? Contempor-
ary Educationa l Psychology, 11, pp. 307–313.
ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (1994) Dimensions of academic self-regulation : a conceptua l framework for education ,
in: D.H. SCHUNK & B.J. ZIMMERMAN (Eds) Self-Regulatio n of Learning and Performance: Issues and
Educationa l Application s (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).
ZIMMERMAN, B.J. (1998) Academic studying and the development of personal skill: a self-regulator y
perspective, Educationa l Psychologist, 33, pp. 73–86.
ZIMMERMAN, B.J. & WEINSTEIN, C.E. (1994) Self-regulatin g academic study time: a strategy approach ,
in: D.H. SCHUNK & B.J. ZIMMERMAN (Eds) Self Regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues and
Educationa l Application s (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).

View publication stats