Content uploaded by Gert-Jan Pepping
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gert-Jan Pepping on Jul 04, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen]
On:
2 February 2011
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 907173570]
Publisher
Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713768823
Self-Regulation of Practice Behavior Among Elite Youth Soccer Players: An
Exploratory Observation Study
Tynke Toering
a
; Marije Elferink-Gemser
a
; Geir Jordet
b
; Casper Jorna
a
; Gert-Jan Pepping
a
; Chris
Visscher
a
a
University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen,
b
Norwegian School of Sport
Sciences,
Online publication date: 28 January 2011
To cite this Article Toering, Tynke , Elferink-Gemser, Marije , Jordet, Geir , Jorna, Casper , Pepping, Gert-Jan and
Visscher, Chris(2011) 'Self-Regulation of Practice Behavior Among Elite Youth Soccer Players: An Exploratory
Observation Study', Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23: 1, 110 — 128
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10413200.2010.534544
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2010.534544
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
JOURNAL OF APPLIED SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 23: 110–128, 2011
Copyright
C
Association for Applied Sport Psychology
ISSN: 1041-3200 print / 1533-1571 online
DOI: 10.1080/10413200.2010.534544
Self-Regulation of Practice Behavior Among Elite Youth Soccer
Players: An Exploratory Observation Study
TYNKE TOERING AND MARIJE ELFERINK-GEMSER
University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen
GEIR JORDET
Norwegian School of Sport Sciences
CASPER JORNA,GERT-JAN PEPPING, AND CHRIS VISSCHER
University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen
This study aimed to measure behavioral correlates of self-regulation in elite youth soccer play-
ers. Behaviors regarded as indicative of self-regulated learning were identified by interviewing
six expert youth soccer coaches. These behaviors were observed during practice of eight elite
youth soccer players aged 15–17 years, and linked with self-reported self-regulated learning
scores to describe behavioral correlates of self-regulation. Results indicated that self-regulated
learning is reflected in taking responsibility for learning and that players’ practice environment
plays a significant role. This study highlights the importance of measuring overt behavior to
gain a complete impression of youth soccer players’ self-regulated learning skills.
Self-regulation is presumed to involve processes that enable individuals to control their
thoughts, feelings, and actions (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). This includes processes that have
evolved to extend the range and flexibility of human behavior, and that enable human beings
to override responses which may prove counterproductive (Baumeister, 2005). Self-regulation
may be important in youth sport because these processes are supposed to help individuals learn
more effectively (Zimmerman, 2006). Accordingly, athletes who self-regulate their learning
well may be better able to get the maximum out of their potential. This seems particularly
relevant in high-level youth soccer where players must perfor m well to become selected
for—and must keep up their performance to stay in—a talent program (Siebelink, 2008;
Stratton, Reilly, Williams, & Richardson, 2004). Youth soccer players are assumed to have a
better chance of achieving the adult elite status if they are enrolled in such talent development
programs because these provide high-standard facilities such as high-quality practice and
Received 5 June 2010; accepted 19 October 2010.
Address correspondence to Tynke Toering, Center for Human Movement Sciences, University Medical
Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, Groningen, 9713 AV, Netherlands.
E-mail: tynke.toering@gmail.com
110
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
SELF-REGULATION OF PRACTICE BEHAVIOR 111
coaching. The current study aimed to identify behavioral correlates of self-regulated learning
within the context of practice among elite youth soccer players.
Zimmerman (2008) pointed out that self-regulated learning refers to self-directed pro-
cesses that enable lear ners to transform their mental abilities into perfor mance skills. Self-
regulated learners show personal initiative, perseverance, and adaptive skills, originating from
favorable metacognitive strategies and motivational beliefs (e.g., Zimmerman, 2006, 2008).
Self-regulation processes are thought not to produce excellence immediately, but to facilitate
effective learning of individuals (Zimmerman, 2006). Several studies have shown that success-
ful learners display greater self-regulation and stronger motivational beliefs (e.g., Boekaerts,
Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2005; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Zimmerman, 2006).
Chen and Singer (1992) suggested that successful athletes self-monitor; they detect dis-
crepancies between their current and potential level of achievement and self-regulate their
efforts t o improve performance. Additionally, it has been found that self-regulation failure
harms athletic performance (e.g., Anshel & Porter, 1996; Jordet, 2009a, 2009b; Kirschen-
baum, Ordman, Tomarken, & Holtzbauer, 1982). Therefore, athletes who self-regulate well
could be more likely to reach the elite status than others (Anshel & Porter, 1996). Further-
more, studies examining self-regulation in sport training have revealed that experts are better
self-regulators than non-experts or novices (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001; Kitsantas & Zim-
merman, 2002). When practicing free throws in basketball, for instance, experts were found to
use better methods to self-regulate their learning. They set more specific goals, selected more
technique-oriented strategies, and displayed higher levels of self-efficacy than non-experts or
novices (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001). Hence, self-regulation of learning may cause youth
athletes to benefit more from practice and competition. As the time to reach the top in sports
is relatively short compared to other domains, such as academia or music, effective learning
is particularly important in youth sport.
Recent studies have indicated a relationship between self-regulation and performance level
of youth soccer players. Elite youth soccer players reported higher self-regulation of learning
scores than non-elite players (Toering, Elferink-Gemser, Jordet, & Visscher, 2009a), and,
within a group of elite youth soccer players (all belonging to the best 1% of players in
the Netherlands), international level players’ self-assessed reflection scores were higher than
national level players’ scores (Toering, Elferink-Gemser, Jordet, & Visscher, 2009b). These
studies support the view that players who score high on self-assessed self-regulation of learning
benefit more from practice and competition, which may explain the differences in performance
level.
What currently remains unclear is exactly how effectively regulated learning leads to
more effective learning and better performance. To answer this question, we need to know
what is effective self-regulation of learning. One way to find out how players self-regulate
their learning is to observe their behavior in a lear ning context, that is, during practice. The
American Psychological Association states that psychology is the study of mind and behavior
and that the understanding of behavior is the enterprise of psychologists (APA, 2010). However,
to date, only few studies have been conducted in sport psychology in which behavior was
measured directly (Andersen, McCullagh, & Wilson, 2007). Although knowledge about inner
processes is valuable to understand the mechanisms underpinning behavior, different scores
on questionnaires will only be meaningful if they can be related to overt behavior (Andersen
et al., 2007; Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007). Therefore, the present study focused on
real-world behavior.
In the context of learning, self-regulation has been described by Zimmerman (1989, 2006) as
the degree to which individuals are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally proactive
participants in their learning process. This means that self-regulated learners are able to
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
112 T. TOERING ET AL.
adapt their learning strategies to the practice environment to maximize their progress. The
current study focused on how the metacognitive and motivational processes of self-regulation
are reflected in practice behaviors of youth soccer players. The regulatory component of
the expert learner model suggested by Ertmer and Newby (1996) was used to measure the
metacognitive aspects of self-regulation. According to this model, self-regulation of learning
means individuals (a) plan how they can improve before initiating actions; (b) self-monitor
their actions relative to their goal; (c) evaluate the process and outcome after task execution; and
(d) reflect upon the entire process during cycles of planning, self-monitoring, and evaluation.
Self-regulated learners are thought to make use of metacognitive strategies and motivational
beliefs that lead them to show personal initiative, perseverance, and adaptive skills (e.g.,
Zimmerman, 2006, 2008). Studies among students indicated that motivational beliefs (e.g.,
self-efficacy) and motivational outcome variables (e.g., effort) were positively associated with
cognitive and metacognitive strategies use (e.g., Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Schunk, 2001).
Other research has suggested that to attain maximal performance levels, youth soccer players
must be willing to expend maximal efforts to improve and sustain these efforts over years (Ford,
Ward, Hodges, & Williams, 2009; Helsen, Starkes, & Hodges, 1998). Self-efficacy is the belief
that one is able to successfully execute a required behavior to attain a certain goal (Bandura,
1997), and is a central motivational variable in Zimmerman’s theory of self-regulated learning.
Thus, effort and self-efficacy were the motivational variables investigated in the current study.
With respect to the sport psychology practice, it is relevant to mention the relationship
between self-regulation of learning and intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic moti-
vation refers to performing an activity because it is meaningful in itself (Deci, 1971), while
extrinsic motivation r efers to engagement in an activity as a means to an end (Vallerand, 2007).
It has been shown that youth s occer players’ willingness to strive toward achievement severely
depends on perceptions of competence and control, which in turn are influenced by coach
behaviors (e.g., Wong & Bridges, 1995). Thus, in youth soccer, the coach has great impact on
players’ type of motivation and, therefore, on young athletes’ self-regulation as well.
The purpose of this study was to measure behavioral correlates of self-regulation in elite
youth soccer players. To this end, the study involved two parts: First, six expert youth soccer
coaches were provided conceptualizations of self-regulation of learning and they were then
asked to describe activities they regarded as good or poor self-regulation behaviors during
practice. As we were particularly interested in practice behaviors of high-level youth soccer
players, coaches working with elite youth s occer players on a daily basis were interviewed.
Based on the outcomes of these semi-structured interviews, behavioral items regarded as
indicative of self-regulation of learning were defined (for a description of similar procedures,
see Young & Starkes, 2006a, 2006b). Second, the identified practice behaviors perceived as
indicative of self-regulation of learning by the expert coaches were observed within a group of
elite youth soccer players aged 15 to 17 years using video-taped practice sessions. In an attempt
to describe behavioral correlates of self-regulation during soccer practice, the behavioral items
reported in the interviews were related to a self-report instrument that measured self-assessed
self-regulation of learning.
METHOD
Participants
Coach I nterviews
Six male exper t coaches in youth soccer aged 33 to 45 years were interviewed (M
age
=
37.2 years, SD = 5.4). They had four to 15 years of experience as soccer coaches (M = 10.2
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
SELF-REGULATION OF PRACTICE BEHAVIOR 113
years, SD = 5.1), and worked with elite youth players on a daily basis. At the time this study
took place, they were all coaching male youth soccer teams playing at the highest national
competition level in the Netherlands, meaning that the players in these teams belonged to the
best 1% of soccer players of their age.
Behavioral Observation
To investigate self-regulation behavior, 13 youth male soccer players from a team playing at
the highest national competitive level in the Netherlands were observed during soccer practice.
The mean age of the players was 16 years (SD = 0.6), and, on average, they had 9.6 years of
competitive soccer experience (SD = 2.3), they practiced 8-hr per week at their club (SD =
0.7), and they played 1.4 matches per week (SD = 0.5). Goal keepers were excluded from the
analysis because of their deviating task requirements compared to those of field players.
Procedure
Coach Interviews
Before coaches were contacted, the youth academy director of the soccer club they worked
at was asked permission for the study to proceed. Next, the coaches were asked (by email) to
participate in this study. Appointments for the interviews were made with each coach sepa-
rately. The interviews were conducted by one of the investigators, who beforehand observed
youth soccer practices for two weeks to become familiar with the setting to improve the trust-
worthiness of the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Prior to the interviews, the coaches were
informed that they were audio-recorded for subsequent analysis and that their responses were
treated anonymously. All coaches gave their consent in advance of the interviews, which each
lasted approximately 60 min.
Behavioral Observation
The youth academy director of a Dutch premier league soccer club was approached for
participation in this study. After permission of the youth academy director, the under 17 youth
team was appointed to participate in the study. Then, the parents were asked permission for
the study to proceed. The participants first completed the 46-item Self-Regulation Scale (SRS;
Toering, Elferink-Gemser, Jonker, Van Heuvelen, & Visscher, in press), a questionnaire which
intends to measure self-regulation of learning. Four practice sessions considered representative
for a regular training week were analyzed, which were filmed over a two-week period. Each
practice session filmed consisted of 30 min unregulated pre-practice in the absence of a coach
and 90 min of regular practice guided by the team’s coach(es). The players were accustomed
to being filmed for coaching purposes, and the researchers did not make the players aware of
the objective of analysis to prevent them from showing social desirable behavior.
Before analyzing the four practice sessions, the two observers used one extra video-taped
practice session to train their observation skills by discussing discrepancies in recordings
and interpretations of behavior. Furthermore, slight adjustments were made to the list of
behavioral items and their operational definitions to ensure objective and consistent recording
among both observers. For instance, looking away from the coach had to continue for a few
seconds to become defined as “being distracted during instruction of an exercise.” Additionally,
some positive behaviors were transformed into their negative opposites, because the negative
behaviors could be detected more objectively (e.g., not performing the exercise as intended).
One of the four practice sessions used for final analysis was analyzed by both observers
separately to determine the inter-rater reliability. The two obser vers scored the frequency of
occurrence of the behavioral items per player. The participants who attended at least three out
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
114 T. TOERING ET AL.
of four practice sessions were included in the final analysis, meaning that the behaviors of
eight of the 13 players could be analyzed. All procedures were in accordance with the ethical
standards of the medical faculty of the University of Groningen.
Instruments
Coach I nterviews
The expert coaches were interviewed and asked to describe in detail the practice behaviors of
youth soccer players that reflect self-regulation of learning (see also Young & Starkes, 2006a).
For the coaches’ understanding and to gather accurate data, self-regulation was described in
layman terms. The following probe was read to the coaches
This interview focuses on a select few of your soccer players, specifically, those who self-
regulate their learning. These are the players who: are good at time-management, think about
what they need to do to perform successfully at practice and competition, seek feedback of
their progr ess, are willing to expend effort, and are self-efficacious. They reflect upon what
they have learnt and upon their strengths and weaknesses. These players’ practice behaviors
are best suited to benefit from practice. However, these players are not necessarily the ones
who perform best. I will ask you questions about how self-regulation of learning is reflected
in practice behaviors and how this is visible during soccer practice.
To extend the coaches’ understanding of self-regulated learning theory, a series of open-
ended questions was asked following a general-to-specific approach. First, the interviewer pro-
vided the coaches the definition of self-regulation of learning during practice (“self-regulation
refers to processes by which individuals control their thoughts, feelings and actions during
practice”), and coaches were requested to appoint practice behaviors that they thought reflected
self-regulation of learning. Thereafter, definitions of the metacognitive and motivational com-
ponents of self-regulation were given (“metacognition refers to the regulation of a player’s
own thoughts during practice,” and “motivation refers to the goals players set for themselves
during practice and the effort they are willing to expend to attain these goals,” respectively).
Once more, the coaches were asked to describe behaviors that reflected these components of
self-regulation of learning.
Assuming that the coaches had become sufficiently familiar with the concept of self-
regulation of learning, and as we were particularly interested in the aspects of planning, self-
monitoring, evaluation, reflection, effort, and self-efficacy, a series of open-ended questions
was then posed as follows:
What practice behaviors do you look for in order to identify a soccer player who shows a lot
of planning? Planning is defined as follows: The player plans how he wants to improve his
performance, before initiating actions. What may a player who is good or poor at planning do?
What may a player who is good or poor at planning say?
The same series of questions was posed for self-monitoring (“The player controls his
progress during task performance.”), evaluation (“After task performance, the player evaluates
what went right and wrong.”), reflection (“The player thinks about what he has learnt, his
strengths and weaknesses, and how he can improve.”), effort (“The player is willing to expend
effort in order to successfully execute a task.”), and self-efficacy (“The player believes that he
can successfully perform his tasks. This is a player’s judgment of his own abilities.”). When
a coach responded ambiguously to a question, he was asked to describe exactly what a player
might say or do.
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
SELF-REGULATION OF PRACTICE BEHAVIOR 115
Lastly, the interviewer requested the coaches to describe behaviors indicative of good and
poor self-regulation of learning in specific practice contexts, that is, on the pitch before the
start of a practice session, during instruction of exercises, and during exercises, respectively.
This information was used to check whether coaches had correctly understood the concept of
self-regulation of learning.
Self-Regulation Scale
In an attempt to accurately describe behavioral correlates of self-regulation during soccer
practice, the behavioral items observed during practice were related to a self-report instrument
that measured self-regulation of learning. To this end, the soccer players first completed
the Self-Regulation Scale, which measures dispositional self-regulation as a metacognitive
and motivational construct in learning contexts (Toering et al., in press). The 46-item SRS
comprises the subscales of planning (8 items), self-monitoring (6 items), evaluation (8 items),
reflection (5 items), effort (9 items), and self-efficacy (10 items). A confirmatory factor analysis
among 601 adolescents aged 11 to 17 years revealed sufficient reliability and validity (i.e.,
CFI = .95, NNFI = .94, RMSEA = .060, SRMR = .063, Cronbach’s α = .73–.85; Toering
et al., in press).
Behavioral Observation
To identify behavioral correlates of self-regulation during soccer practice, the 16 behavioral
items from the interviews were operationalized into a classification scheme (Table 1). The
practice sessions filmed were analyzed by two observers using Noldus Observer XT 8.0
(Noldus Information Technology, 2009). Each behavioral item was scored per player based
on frequency, grading one point each time the behavior was displayed. In this way, we took
into account whether or not a behavior was shown and how often it was shown. For the item
of “on time for practice,” however, the scoring differed. The 30 min before practice started
were divided into six and players received 1/6 of a point extra for every 5 min they were on
the pitch before the start of practice. Players received one point for being on time plus 1/6 for
every five min they were on the pitch before practice, meaning that a player coming to the
pitch 20 min before practice received 1 + 4/6 = 1.67 points. This scoring method allowed us
to differentiate players who came to the pitch early from the ones who arrived relatively late,
because normally players at this high level of performance all are on time for practice.
Data Analysis
Coach Interviews
The interviews were transcribed verbatim. Each behavioral item mentioned was categorized
into one or more of the self-regulation aspects and as either good or poor self-regulation. Two
of the investigators separately analyzed the interviews. Items reflecting the same content were
grouped together. Thereafter, the investigators discussed the content of the items and grouped
the items they had not agreed upon accordingly. Subsequently, the number of times was counted
that each practice behavior perceived by the expert coaches as an example of self-regulation
was mentioned.
Behavioral Observation
The inter-rater reliability was determined in Noldus Observer based on one practice session.
In this program, the calculation of Cohen’s Kappa accounts for the kinds of behaviors that
are observed and the time at which these behaviors are observed. As the usual calculation of
Cohen’s Kappa only accounts for the kind of behavior observed, the computation of Cohen’s
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
Table 1
Behavioral Items, Number of Coaches Who Mentioned the Items per Self-Regulation Aspect, Total Frequency of Occurrence, and
Operational Definitions
Behavioral Item: Coaches’ Perceptions of Aspect
Good Self-Regulation of Learning (N coaches) Total N Operational Definition
1. Verbally approaches coach during instruction Planning (2)
Monitoring (2)
Evaluation (1)
Effort (2)
Self-efficacy (2)
9 The player approaches the coach during instruction (e.g., by raising his
hand) and starts talking to him: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
2. Verbally approaches coach during exercise Monitoring (4)
Effort (2)
Self-efficacy (2)
8 The player approaches the coach during an exercise and starts talking to
him: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
3. Verbally approaches coach after exercise Evaluation (4)
Reflection (2)
Effort (2)
Self-efficacy (2)
6 The player approaches the coach after an exercise session and starts
talking to him: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
4. Coaching of teammates (with gesture) Planning (4)
Monitoring (1)
Reflection (1)
Effort (2)
Self-efficacy (2)
10 The player coaches his teammate(s) verbally (by shouting corrections,
indications or directions) AND uses a gesture: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
5. Works on improvement of his weak points during
the 30 min before start of practice session
Evaluation (3)
Reflection (2)
5 The player works on improvement of his weak points. These points are
assigned by the coach and are known to the observers (e.g.,
passing/shooting, left foot, receive ball left foot, right foot): 0 = no,
1 = yes for each point of improvement separately.
6. Apologizes to teammate(s) for making error Reflection (1)
Effort (1)
2 The player makes an error during an exercise and notices it was his
error. Therefore, he apologizes to his teammate(s) using a gesture:
0 = no, 1 = yes.
7. Number of minutes on pitch before practice
session starts
Effort (2) 2 On time: 0 = no, 1 = yes. Plus score for number of min player is on
pitch before practice session starts: 1/6 = 0–5 min, 1/3 = 5–10 min,
1/2 = 10–15 min, 2/3 = 15–20 min, 5/6 = 20–25 min, and 1 =
25–30 min.
8. Outfit Effort (2) 2 Player wears the correct outfit for practice: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
116
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
9. Position in front of line at start exercise Planning (1) 1 The player is among the first two players in line at the start of an
exercise when the exercise allows for it: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
10. Asking for the ball Self-efficacy (1) 1 The player shouts for the ball during exercises that allow for it, for
instance, during small-sided games or position play: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
11. Answers questions Evaluation (2) 2 The player answers questions asked by the coach: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
12. Is distracted during instruction of an exercise Planning (2)
Effort (3)
5 The player does not pay attention to the coach during instruction. He
does not look at the coach or the coach’s gestures, but looks around:
0 = no, 1 = yes.
13. Excessive behavior Effort (2) 2 The player displays excessive behavior, which is defined as
non-disciplinary behavior. For instance, the player kicks balls off the
pitch in between exercises or frolics with teammates: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
14. Not watching teammates performing exercise
while waiting for his turn
Planning (1) 1 During an exercise, the player is in line waiting for his turn. However,
he is not watching his teammates performing the exercise: 0 =
watching, 1 = not watching.
15. Not performing exercise as intended Effort (3)
Self-efficacy (1)
4 The player does not perform the exercise as he is supposed to do. For
instance, he takes a short-cut by not going around the cones: 0 =
performs as supposed to, 1 = does not perform as supposed to.
16. Makes error during exercise Monitoring (1) 1 The player makes an error during an exercise, for instance, passing the
ball to the wrong player: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
117
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
118 T. TOERING ET AL.
Kappa in Noldus Observer is more strict than the usual calculation procedure (Jansen, Wiertz,
Meyer, & Noldus, 2003). A Cohen’s Kappa of .85 was found, which is above the criterion of
.60, indicating sufficient inter-rater reliability.
Mean scores on each of the six SRS subscales were calculated as well as a total self-
regulation score. Furthermore, the scores on each behavioral item were divided by the number
of practice sessions each participant attended so that a mean score per player over the practice
sessions could be obtained. Thereafter, Spearman correlations were computed between the
mean scores of the SRS and the behavioral item scores.
RESULTS
Coach Interviews
The responses to the questions about self-regulation of learning, metacognition, and mo-
tivation indicated that the coaches regarded self-regulation of learning as associated with
behaviors such as being prepared for practice (e.g., correct outfit, being on time), practicing
weak points before practice, asking questions, requesting maximum efforts of themselves and
of their t eammates, coaching of teammates, engaging in focused practice, and wanting to
get the maximum out of those one-and-a-half practice hours. The metacognition component
was perceived as the thinking part of self-regulation, while motivation was perceived as the
willingness to succeed in soccer, which also influences the thinking part. Although the coaches
generally regarded motivation as positive for learning, they believed that metacognition may
also have a downside, in that being overly critical may lead to doubt. The part of the inter-
views asking about specific practice contexts revealed that the coaches seemed to have a clear
understanding of the self-regulation concept, as responses were comparable to the ones given
in the other parts of the interviews. The following quotes illustrate the coaches’ ideas about
self-regulation of learning, metacognition, and motivation:
Self-regulated players are the guys who want to invest in themselves, who are there, who want
to know all, who are eager to practice, and who like to receive feedback. (...). At the start of
an exercise he would ask whether the ball should be passed low or through the air, for instance.
Metacognition has two directions. A player can be occupied with the tasks of his playing
position and then he absolutely has thoughts of when to do this or that, which I find absolutely
positive.
A tr uly motivated player not only wants to improve himself. He also wants to help his teammates.
This kind of player often tries to coach and to help at the right moment.
The coaches described 27 behaviors when asked about the six self-regulation aspects, 16
of which were objectively visible behaviors. Only the visible behaviors were included in the
observation part of this study, because the sensitivity of the microphones did not allow us
to reliably obtain auditory information during video observation. There were four single-
mentioned items, that is, items mentioned by one expert coach, and 12 multiple-mentioned
items. The 16 visible behavioral items are listed in Table 1, with numbers 1 to 11 as good
self-regulation behaviors and numbers 12 to 16 as poor self-regulation behaviors. First, the
behavioral items regarded as good self-regulation behaviors will be discussed, thereafter the
behaviors perceived as indicative of poor self-regulation will be described.
The expert coaches linked several behaviors to more than one self-regulation of learning
aspect. “Verbally approaching the coach during instruction,” for instance, was regarded as
an example of planning, self-monitoring, evaluation, effort, and self-efficacy. “Verbally ap-
proaching the coach during and after exercises” and “coaching of teammates (with gesture)”
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
SELF-REGULATION OF PRACTICE BEHAVIOR 119
were perceived as expressions of several self-regulation aspects as well. These behaviors were
also the most frequently mentioned by the coaches (i.e., 9, 8, 6, and 10 times, respectively;
Table 1). These results are in accordance with the coaches’ responses to the more general ques-
tions about self-regulation of learning, metacognition, and motivation, in that they frequently
mentioned asking questions and coaching of teammates as indicative of these concepts. “Ask-
ing questions,” for instance, was regarded as indicative of self-regulation, because coaches
thought that it is important that players find out why they do certain things wrong and try to
do these things differently. Asking the coach may provide players with the information they
need, and this was regarded as an important feature of several self-regulated learning aspects.
The following quote illustrates the coaches’ ideas:
They ask many questions. Such as, ‘if I do this, then it may be easier’. Or ‘I often do this during
a match, is it right or wrong?’ They are open to critique. They want to learn.
Coaches perceived “coaching of teammates” as a way of directing or stimulating team-
mates. “Coaching of teammates” was, for example, regarded as a self-efficacy aspect of self-
regulation, in that players with high self-efficacy beliefs were suggested to be more confident
to direct or stimulate others. One of the coaches indicated: “I believe that confident players
direct their teammates in a positive way.”
The expert coaches perceived “working on improvement of weak points before practice”
as an example of the evaluation and reflection aspects of self-regulation of learning. They
explained that players who try to improve their weak points before practice are the ones who
are able to indicate which performance aspects they must improve and which aspects they
are in control of. These players were assumed to have a correct self-image and to know that
they are not at an optimal performance level yet. A coach indicated that “some of my players
are already well able to indicate which things they are in control of and which aspects need
improvement. You see those guys working on their weak points. They want to do this for their
own sake, not because the coach wants them to.” The coaches stated that they notice that these
players make progress because of extra practice. As one coach pointed out: “Before practice
they are occupied with the ball. These are the guys who make the biggest steps. They are not
necessarily the best players, but they make the most progress.”
“Apologizing to teammates for making an error” was perceived as an example of reflection
by one coach, who indicated that players displaying this behavior are aware of their actions
and the effects of their actions, and take responsibility. He pointed out that it is easy to blame
a teammate for a poor pass, but that players who reflect on their performance know when
they make an error and take responsibility. Another coach regarded this behavioral item as
an expression of effort. He stated that players who show this kind of behavior have a critical
attitude towards themselves and they are tremendously motivated to improve the aspects of
their performance that need improvement.
“On time for practice” and “wearing the right outfit” were regarded as expressions of effort.
Both behaviors were perceived as basic expressions of the willingness to invest maximal effort
in practice. “Players’ position in the front part of the line at the start of an exercise” was
mentioned as an example of planning. One of the coaches thought that planning was related
to taking initiative, meaning that “being in the front part of the line when an exercise starts”
was supposed to be an expression of good planning. He pointed out that players showing this
behavior dare to take initiative and dare to give an example.
One coach assumed that “asking for the ball” was an expression of self-efficacy. Players who
frequently ask for the ball were supposed to play with confidence, even if they make an error.
They were perceived as players who always want the ball, even when playing poor. “Answering
questions” was perceived by one coach as an example of evaluation. He pointed out that players
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
120 T. TOERING ET AL.
who evaluate their performance answer questions by the coach in a substantive manner. Players
who evaluate were supposed to not just answer questions affirmative or negative.
Several behaviors were thought to be associated with concentration, which was perceived
as an expression of planning and effort. One of these behaviors was “being distracted during
instruction of an exercise.” The coaches pointed out that they perceived players who listen
carefully to the coach’s instructions as being focused. Thus, “being distracted during instruc-
tion” was regarded as a for m of poor planning. They also indicated that players who put
maximal efforts into practice are the ones who are focused and who are not easily distracted.
“Being distracted during instruction of an exercise” was, therefore, perceived as indicative of
investing lower levels of effort into practice as well. Additionally, “excessive behavior” was
thought to be indicative of unfocused practice and, therefore, of lowered levels of effort. By
excessive behavior the coaches meant behaviors such as frolicking with teammates during
practice or kicking balls off the pitch in-between exercises. Another coach perceived “not
watching teammates performing and exercise while waiting in line” as an example of poor
planning. He indicated that players good at planning are concentrated and carefully watch their
teammates performing exercises: “They look carefully at an exercise. You see them thinking
and checking in their minds while they wait for their turn. During a passing exercise, like
“all right, the ball should go there and there.” It can be argued that the coach is speaking
of observational learning, which has been investigated in relationship with self-regulation of
learning in previous research (e.g., Kitsantas, Zimmerman, & Cleary, 2000).
The expert coaches appointed “not performing the exercise as intended” as an example
of maladaptive motivational patterns, that is, lowered effort and self-efficacy levels. They
regarded correct performance of exercises as very important in players’ learning process,
which does not mean that exercises have to be performed perfectly. However, the player’s
intention should be to perform exercises completely and not to take the easy way. The coaches
also indicated that players should always execute exercises as intended, not just when they
notice that the coach is watching. One coach mentioned this behavioral item as indicative of
self-efficacy. He stated that players who do not perform the exercises as intended may make
decisions that are not in accordance with their qualities. It was suggested t hat these players
may have an unrealistic self-image, meaning that they perform actions they are not (yet) able
to perform, which the following quote is intended to exemplify:
These guys have a good and realistic self-image. There are guys who, for instance during
match play, try to give a cross pass while they don’t have the qualities to do so, which means
losing ball possession each time. I don’t think that’s an example of a correct self-image. You
must know what your qualities are and become the best at the things you are able to.
“Making errors during an exercise” was mentioned as indicative of poor self-monitoring
by one coach. He stated that players who self-monitor well process directions given by the
coach in an adaptive way, which means that they do not make many mistakes. Players who
self-monitor poorly were thought to make more errors and more same-kind errors. The coach
indicated: “I would watch how they execute exercises. And whether they try things differently
when they make an error. So I would look at whether they make many same-kind errors.”
In summary, the expert coaches mostly mentioned verbal approach behaviors, coaching
of teammates, and behaviors referring to focused practice as expressions of self-regulation
of learning. Fur thermore, some behaviors were perceived to reflect several self-regulated
learning aspects. We must observe the behavioral items mentioned by the coaches and link
these with an instrument measuring self-regulation of learning to identify behavioral correlates
of self-regulated learning during s occer practice. To this end, the second part of the present
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
SELF-REGULATION OF PRACTICE BEHAVIOR 121
Table 2
Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and Range of Scores for each Behavioral Item per
Practice Session
Behavioral Item: Coaches’ Perceptions of Good Self-Regulation of Learning M (SD) Range of Scores
1. Verbally approaches coach during instruction 0.88 (1.25) 0.00–3.00
2. Verbally approaches coach during exercise 0.38 (0.74) 0.00–2.00
3. Verbally approaches coach after exercise 0.38 (0.52) 0.00–1.00
4. Coaching of teammates (with gesture) 21.25 (15.77) 9.00–53.00
5. Works on improvement of his weak points during the 30 min before start of
practice session
2.63 (0.74) 2.00–4.00
6. Apologizes to teammate(s) for making error 0.50 (0.53) 0.00–1.00
7. Number of minutes on pitch before practice session starts 1.36 (0.10) 1.22–1.50
8. Outfit 1.00 (0.00) 1.00–1.00
9. Position in front of line at start exercise 1.50 (1.20) 0.00–3.00
10. Asking for the ball 10.63 (0.33) 3.00–24.00
11. Answers questions 3.75 (2.60) 0.00–7.00
Behavioral Item: Coaches’ Perceptions of Poor Self-Regulation of Learning M (SD)Range
12. Is distracted during instruction of an exercise 20.13 (8.36) 9.00–30.00
13. Excessive behavior 0.50 (0.76) 0.00–2.00
14. Not watching teammates performing exercise while waiting for his turn 4.00 (2.33) 1.00–7.00
15. Not performing exercise as intended 2.63 (5.29) 0.00–15.00
16. Makes error during exercise 1.75 (1.16) 0.00–4.00
study examined whether the behaviors observed during practice and players’ self-assessed
self-regulation of learning scores were related.
Behavioral Observation
The mean scores, standard deviations, and range of scores for each behavioral item over the
four practice sessions are presented in Table 2. The self-regulation practice behavior displayed
the most was “coaching teammates (with gesture),” whereas “verbally approach the coach
during and after exercises” appeared the least (Table 2).
Table 3 shows the significant Spearman correlations between the questionnaire scores
and the scores on the behavioral items. Results revealed that the total self-regulation score
was positively associated with “verbal approach behaviors,” “coaching of teammates (with
gesture),” and “answering questions.” Specifically, self-monitoring was positively related to
“coaching of teammates,” evaluation was positively associated with “verbally approaching
the coach during instruction and during exercises,” reflection scores were positively linked
with “coaching of teammates” and “apologizing for making a mistake,” and self-efficacy
was positively associated with “coaching of teammates.” Negative relationships were found
between the total self-regulation score and “making errors,” between evaluation and “not
performing the exercise as intended” and “excessive behavior,” and between effort and “asking
for the ball” and “excessive behavior.” No significant correlations were found between planning
and the behavioral items.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to measure behavioral correlates of self-regulation in
elite youth soccer players. First, behavioral items regarded as indicative of good and poor
self-regulation were i dentified by interviewing six expert youth soccer coaches. The expert
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
Table 3
Significant Spearman Correlations Between SRS Subscales and Scores on Behavioral Items Provided by Expert Coaches
Self-Regulation
Planning Self-Monitoring Evaluation Reflection Effort Self-Efficacy Total Score
Verbally approaches coach during instruction .87
a
.67
b
Verbally approaches coach during exercise .74
a
.73
a
Coaching of teammates (with gesture) .93
a
.75
a
.76
a
.83
a
Answers questions .64
b
Apologizes to teammate for making error .62
b
Asking for the ball −.64
b
Makes error during exercise −.66
b
Not performing exercise as intended −.83
a
Excessive behavior −.72
a
−.73
a
a
p < .05.
b
p < .10.
122
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
SELF-REGULATION OF PRACTICE BEHAVIOR 123
coaches associated the behavioral items with several self-regulation aspects and mostly men-
tioned verbal approach behaviors, coaching of teammates, and behaviors referring to focused
practice as expressions of self-regulation of learning. Second, the behaviors mentioned by the
coaches were observed using video-taped practice sessions of elite youth soccer players. Third,
players completed the SRS which measures self-regulation of learning. The SRS scores were
combined with behavioral observation to describe behavioral cor relates of self-regulation.
Self-regulation of learning as reported by the players seemed to be associated with behaviors
referring to providing and receiving information, and focused practice. The results of the
coach interviews will be discussed first, followed by a discussion of behavioral correlates and
a general discussion.
Coach Interviews
Generally, the expert coaches perceived practice behaviors that reflected a proactive ap-
proach to learning as indicative of self-regulation of learning. Self-regulated players were
assumed to display behaviors which indicated that they create optimal learning conditions, are
aware of their abilities and inabilities, take responsibility and initiative, are focused, and are
prepared for practice. These results appear to be in accordance with self-regulated learning
theory, in that self-regulated learners are thought to proactively approach their learning tasks
and to display personal initiative, perseverance, and adaptive skills that stem from facilitative
metacognitive strategies and motivational beliefs (e.g., Zimmerman, 2006, 2008).
The coaches’ responses to the interviews were in accordance with findings of previous
qualitative studies in youth soccer. Holt and Dunn (2004) found that commitment, resilience,
discipline, and social support were factors facilitating progression in academy youth soccer.
In line with our results, the subcategories of personal responsibility, determination to succeed,
career planning, and openness to criticism were mentioned. A more recent study among expert
coaches of rugby union, soccer, and rugby league teams also mirrored our interview results
(Oliver, Hardy, & Markland, 2010). Several behaviors found in the current study replicated the
ones found by Oliver et al. (2010) such as “being on time,” “being prepared with the correct kit
for training,” “admitting to errors,” “doing extra work to improve,” “working hard, not taking
the easy way,” “asking questions,” “answering questions,” “being attentive during instruction,”
and “no messing around.”
Several behaviors were regarded as an expression of more than one self-regulation aspect
(see Table 1). These behaviors were also mentioned in the first part of the interviews in which the
coaches were asked to appoint behaviors indicative of self-regulated learning, metacognition
and motivation. This result confirms other research on self-regulated learning that also revealed
that different aspects of self-regulation are related (e.g., Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001; Kitsantas
& Zimmerman, 2002).
Note that, although the responses to the inter views seemed to indicate that self-regulated
players show a proactive approach to learning, one could ask how many of the self-regulation
behaviors indeed are intrinsically regulated. There are several behaviors that players may
show because they are aware that the coach appreciates them. The high level at which the
soccer players in the current study play brings about that these players have two goals: to
make progress towards becoming a professional and to become selected for the next match
or next season. Obeying the coach or showing the behaviors a coach appreciates may become
a goal in itself to become selected and being selected is important to make progress. Thus,
behaviors perceived by the coach as indicative of self-regulation can then become extrinsically
regulated, in that players are motivated by the extrinsic reward of becoming selected by the
coach. As a consequence, some behaviors that were identified during the interviews may,
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
124 T. TOERING ET AL.
in addition to an intrinsic, self-regulation component, contain an extrinsic, other-regulated
component. It is possible, for instance, that players make sure that they are in the front part
of the line at t he star t of an exercise, because they know that the coach pays attention to this
kind of behavior. Furthermore, players may frequently ask for the ball to get noticed by the
coach, not necessarily because they are confident. Findings by Holt and Dunn (2004) and
Oliver et al. (2010) support this view. Besides love of the game and determination to succeed,
obeying orders and production (i.e., effective performance in competition) were mentioned as
subcategories of the conforming dedication that was perceived as important for progression in
youth soccer (Holt & Dunn, 2004).
The coaches seem, to some extent, to neglect the fact that self-regulation of learning is
individually determined. Behaviors such as “not looking at the coach during instruction” or
“not watching teammates performing an exercise” do not necessarily mean that players are
unfocused. One can also pay attention when only listening and not watching others could also
mean that a player is focused on himself, preparing for the actions he is supposed to execute
when it is his turn. Additionally, “being in the front part of the line” could mean that a player is
merely enthusiastic instead of planning to learn. Although all this means that the perceptions
of the coaches may not be accurate, the coach is the person who decides on playing formations
and which players stay in the talent program. This means that coaches’ perceptions of behavior
are crucial, whether accurate or inaccurate. We therefore recommend that coaches be made
fully aware that behaviors can be interpreted in different ways.
Behavioral Correlates
The total self-regulation of learning score seemed mostly associated with “coaching of
teammates (with gesture).” Self-regulation of l earning involves that players try to benefit
maximally from practice and competition, which means that they pursue high-quality practice.
Given that soccer is a team sport, performing well and thus practicing at a high level includes
helping teammates to improve team and individual performance. It has been suggested that the
dynamic nature of soccer holds that players must continuously adapt to changes from macro- to
microstates of play (i.e., broad vs. narrow attention) and balance their defensive and offensive
responsibilities (Williams & Ward, 2007). Players can use peripheral vision in the 180-degree
visual field in front of them, but they cannot easily detect what is going on behind their back
without turning to look (Jordet, 2005). Coaching of teammates improves team performance
by making teammates aware of task-relevant information (e.g., Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2007;
Williams, Davids, & Williams, 1999).
An alternative explanation f or the link found between self-regulation of learning and coach-
ing behavior may be that players who coach their teammates a lot are the ones that are better
skilled. These players’ soccer skills may provide them relatively more time to look around
and direct or correct other players. As highly skilled players typically need less attention
to perform their tasks relatively automatically, they can focus on environmental information
and the outcome of a skilled action (e.g., Abernethy, Maxwell, Masters, Van der Kamp, &
Jackson, 2007). This may also be an explanation for the (negative) link that was f ound between
effort scores and “asking for the ball,” as better skilled players may report lower effort scores
because of their higher abilities. It may be that they are able to create space for themselves
more frequently to receive the ball, which means that they can more often ask for the ball.
Future research should gain more insight in coaching of teammates and its relationship with
self-regulated learning and soccer performance.
Although the total self-regulation score was related to “verbally approaching the coach
during instruction and during exercises,” the aspect of evaluation seemed to underlie this
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
SELF-REGULATION OF PRACTICE BEHAVIOR 125
relationship. “Verbally approaching the coach during instruction or exercises” mostly meant
that the players asked questions. Approaching others to ask questions has been considered
a strong metacognitive strategy involved in seeking help (Karabenick & Newman, 2009;
Kitsantas, Winsler, & Huie, 2008). The relationship between self-regulated learning and help-
seeking behaviors has been found in the academic context as well (Karabenick & Knapp,
1991; Kitsantas et al., 2008). Karabenick and Knapp (1991) showed that the more self-
regulated learners were, the more they were likely to seek help when needed. Our results
supported this idea: the higher the total self-regulation scores, the more questions players asked.
Players scoring high on evaluation specifically asked more questions during instruction and
during exercises. It is suggested that these players check whether they understand the coach’s
instruction and whether they perform the exercises correctly, and that they ask questions
when they notice things are unclear to them. However, as pointed out by Karabenick and
Newman (2009; p.30), j ust knowing whether learners have sought help, without additional
information, is insufficient to understand the adaptive significance of the behavior. This was
also stated in the current study by one of the expert coaches, who indicated that, “players
should not ask unnecessary questions, because t hose players are considered to have low levels
of confidence or not to attend to what was explained.” With respect to “answering questions” it
should also be taken into account whether the answers given were substantive. Future research
should, therefore, address the questions asked and the answers given to make the link with
self-regulated learning more explicit.
“Making errors” during an exercise was negatively related to the total s elf-regulation of
learning score reported by the players themselves, meaning that players high on self-regulation
made relatively few mistakes. Players who self-regulate their lear ning well are supposed to aim
at gaining the most out of practice and competition, which implies that they are focused during
practice and competition. Consequently, one would expect players who report high levels of
self-regulation to make relatively few errors during practice. This result seems to support
deliberate practice theory, which indicates that many years of sustained, focused practice are
necessary to reach expert levels of performance (e.g., Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-R
¨
omer,
1993; Ford et al., 2009; Helsen et al., 1998). However, players who scored high on self-
regulation of learning may also seek out easier tasks or make decisions involving easier and
safer options. They may have self-images that are more correct, causing them to take options
that fit their abilities. Another explanation may be that players pick easier and safer options to
make sure they will be selected for the next match, because they believe that making errors
could mean that the coach will not select them. To find out the why behind certain behaviors, an
implication for further research is to interview individual players while watching video-taped
practice sessions and ask them why they displayed these behaviors. As the coaches pointed
out in the interviews, it seems particularly important how players cope with making errors.
Reflection scores were associated with “apologizing to teammates after an error.” Reflection
has been suggested to be a process central to learning, because it is the process by which players
translate thought into action (Ertmer & Newby, 1996). Players who reflect upon their actions
are supposed to know when they make errors and take responsibility, which enables them
to learn. The link between reflection scores and apologizing to teammates after making an
error seems to support this idea and it may support the suggestion made in previous studies
that high-level players may learn more effectively than lower-level players through reflective
thinking (Toering et al., 2009a, 2009b).
General Discussion
Overall, the expert coaches’ view was supported by the relationships found between be-
havioral items and the scores that the players obtained on the self-report instrument. Some
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
126 T. TOERING ET AL.
behavioral items thought by the coaches to reflect certain self-regulated learning aspects, ap-
peared to be associated with other self-regulation aspects as reported by individual players.
Although the interviews were structured with the intention to provide coaches a clear under-
standing of the self-regulated learning concept, it remains possible that their understanding of
the concept differed. However, the coaches’ responses largely overlapped findings of previous
studies on talent development in spor t (e.g., Holt & Dunn, 2004; Oliver et al., 2010). Because
of the major role coaches play in soccer and in other sports, we recommend that practitioners
and researchers be aware that players’ and coaches’ interpretations of behavior may differ.
It is possible that certain behaviors indicative of self-regulation of l earning were not men-
tioned by the coaches. Although the coach interviews formed a rich data set, interviews with
individual soccer players may provide additional information and further reduce the chance
that behavioral items were excluded. Future research should address this issue. Moreover,
further research should take into account that practice sessions differ in the extent to which
certain behaviors can be displayed. Coaching behavior may, for instance, be more prominent
during practice sessions that are focused on tactical training than during sessions that are
focused on endurance or sprinting capacity.
In conclusion, this study examined behavioral correlates of self-regulation of learning
within the practice context among elite youth soccer players. Six expert youth soccer coaches
provided behavioral items they regarded as indicative of good and poor self-regulation. These
behaviors were observed during practice and linked with self-regulated learning scores on
a questionnaire to describe behavioral correlates of self-regulation among elite youth soccer
players. The expert coaches most frequently mentioned verbal approach behaviors, coaching
of teammates, and behaviors referring to focused practice as expressions of self-regulation of
learning. Results also showed that coaches’ and players’ perspectives on self-regulated learning
differ, which researchers and practitioners should be aware of. Self-regulation of learning
as reported by the players seemed to be associated with behaviors referring to providing
and receiving information, and being focused during practice, which is in accordance with
self-regulated learning theory. Taken together, the results of the present study emphasize
that self-regulation of learning is reflected in taking responsibility for learning. The study
indicates that the practice environment (i.e., coaches, teammates) should be taken into account
when investigating youth soccer players’ learning and development. Furthermore, it highlights
the importance of measuring overt behavior to gain a complete impression of players’ self-
regulated learning skills.
REFERENCES
Abernethy, B., Maxwell, J. P., Masters, R. S. W., Van der Kamp, J., & Jackson, R. C. (2007). Attentional
processes in skill learning and expert performance. In G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.),
Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 245–263). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Andersen, M. B., McCullagh, P., & Wilson, G. J. (2007). But what do the numbers really tell us?:
Arbitrary metrics and effect size reporting in sport psychology research. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 29, 664–672.
American Psychological Association (APA). (2010). How does the APA define “psychology”? Re-
trieved February 2, 2010 from American Psychological Association website: http://www.apa.org/
support/about/apa/psychology.aspx#answer
Anshel, M. H., & Porter, A. (1996). Self-regulatory characteristics of competitive swimmers as a function
of skill level and gender. Journal of Sport Behavior, 19, 91–110.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Baumeister, R. F. (2005). The cultural animal: Human nature, meaning, and social life.NewYork:
Oxford University Press.
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
SELF-REGULATION OF PRACTICE BEHAVIOR 127
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications.
New York: Guilford Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and
finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science,
2, 396–403.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2005). Handbook of self-regulation. Burlington, MA:
Academic Press.
Chen, D., & Singer, R. N. (1992). Self-regulation and cognitive strategies in sport participation. Inter-
national Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 277–300.
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Self-regulation differences during athletic practice by experts,
non-experts, and novices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 185–206.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
Eccles, D. W., & Tenenbaum, G. (2007). A social-cognitive view on team functioning in sport. In
G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 264–283).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-R
¨
omer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instruc-
tional Science, 24, 1–24.
Ford, P. R., Ward, P., Hodges, N. J., & Williams, A. M. (2009). The role of deliberate practice and play
in career progression in sport: the early engagement hypothesis. High Ability Studies, 20, 65–75.
Helsen, W. F., Starkes, J. L., & Hodges, N. J. (1998). Team sports and the theory of deliberate practice.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20, 12–34.
Holt, N. L., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2004). Toward a grounded theory of the psychosocial competencies and
environmental conditions associated with soccer success. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16,
199–219.
Jansen, R. G., Wiertz, L. F., Meyer, E. S., & Noldus, L. P. J. J. (2003). Reliability analysis of observational
data: Problems, solutions, and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments
& Computers, 35, 391–399.
Jordet, G. (2005). Perceptual training in soccer: An imagery intervention study with elite players. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 140–156.
Jordet, G. (2009a). When superstars flop: Public status and “choking under pressure” in international
soccer penalty shootouts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 125–130.
Jordet, G. (2009b). Why do English players fail in soccer penalty shootouts? A study of team status,
self-regulation, and choking under pressure. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 97–106.
Karabenick, S. A., & Knapp, J. R. (1991). Relationship of academic help-seeking to the use of learning
strategies and other instrumental achievement behavior in college students. Journal Educational
Psychology
, 83, 221–230.
Karabenick, S. A., & Newman, R. S. (2009). Seeking help: Generalizable self-regulatory process and
social-cultural barometer. In M. Wosnitza, S. A. Karabenick, A. Efklides, & P. Nenninger (Eds.),
Contemporary motivation research: From global to local perspectives (pp. 25–48). Ashland, OH:
Hogrefe Publishing.
Kirschenbaum, D. S., Ordman, A. M., Tomarken, A. J., & Holtzbauer, R. (1982). Effects of differential
self-monitoring and level of mastery of sports performance: Brain power bowling. Cognitive therapy
and Research, 6, 335–342
Kitsantas, A., Winsler, A., & Huie, F. (2008). Self-regulation and ability predictors of academic success
during college: A predictive validity study. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 42–68.
Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Comparing Self-Regulatory Processes Among Novice, Non-
Expert, and Expert Volleyball Players: A Microanalytic Study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
14, 91–105.
Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. (2000). The role of observation and emulation in the
development of athletic self-regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 811–817.
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
128 T. TOERING ET AL.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage.
Noldus Information Technology. (2009). The Observer XT (version 8.0) [Computer software]. Wagenin-
gen, The Netherlands: Noldus Information Technology.
Oliver, E. J., Hardy, J., & Markland, D. (2010). Identifying important practice behaviors for the develop-
ment of high-level youth athletes: Exploring the perspectives of elite coaches. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 11, 433–443.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications (2nd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Merrill.
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social–cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. H.
Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2
nd
ed., pp. 125–151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Siebelink, J. (2008). De voetbalbelofte: achter de schermen van de jeugdopleiding. [The soccer promise:
Behind the scenes of the youth academy]. Amersfoort, The Netherlands: De Vrije.
Stratton, G., Reilly, T., Williams, A. M., & Richardson, D. (2004). Youth soccer: From science to
performance. New York: Routledge.
Toering, T. T., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Jonker, L., Van Heuvelen, M. J. G., & Visscher, C. (in press).
Measuring self-regulation in a learning context: Reliability and validity of the Self-Regulation Scale
(SRS). International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology.
Toering, T. T., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Jordet, G., & Visscher, C. (2009a). Self-regulation and perfor-
mance level of elite and non-elite youth soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1509–1517.
Toering, T. T., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Jordet, G., & Visscher, C. (2009b, June). Self-regulation and
performance level in top-level youth soccer: International versus national level players. Abstract,
ISSP 12th World Congress of Sport Psychology: Meeting new challenges and bridging cultural
gaps in sport and exercise psychology? [CD]. Marrakech, Morocco: International Society of Sport
Psychology (ISSP).
Vallerand, R. J. (2007). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and physical activity: A review and a
look at the future. In G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd
ed., pp. 59–83). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Young, B. W., Starkes, J. L. (2006a). Coaches’ perception of non-regulated training behaviours in
competitive swimmers. International Journal of Sport Science & Coaching, 1, 53–68.
Young, B. W., Starkes, J. L. (2006b). Measuring outcomes of swimmers’ non-regulation during prac-
tice: Relationships between self-report, coaches’ judgement, and video-observation. International
Journal of Sport Science & Coaching, 1, 131–148.
Williams, A. M., Davids, K., & Williams, J. G. (1999). Visual perception and action in sport. London:
Spon.
Williams, A. M., & Ward, P. (2007). Anticipation and Decision Making: Exploring new horizons. In
G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 203–223).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wong, E. H., & Bridges, L. J. (1995). A model of motivational orientation for youth sport: Some
preliminary work. Adolescence, 30, 437–452.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of self-regulatory processes
and beliefs. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 705–722). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, method-
ological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166–183.
Downloaded By: [Pepping, Gert-Jan][University of Groningen] At: 12:15 2 February 2011
