Referencias

• Alamargot, D. & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the Models of Writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, J. J. W., Saklofske, D. H. & Janzen, H. L. (2001). Handbook of Psychoeducational Assessment. Ability, Achievement, and Behavior in Children. san Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Artzt, A. F. & Armour-Thomas, E. (1997). Mathematical Problem Solving in Small Groups: Exploring the Interplay of Students' Metacognitive Behaviours, Perceptions and Ability Levels. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 16 (1), 63–74.
   Google Scholar
• Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. En F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Bonin, P. & Fayol, M. (2002). On-line methodologies for studing the written production of isolated words: A brief overview. En T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 119–131). Dordrecht, A.A.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, D. L. (1993). Promoting strategic learning by adults with learning disabilities: An alternative approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, D. L. (1994). From learning strategies to strategic learning: Promoting self-regulated learning by post secondary students with learning disabilities. Canadian Journal of Special Education, 4, 69–101.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, D. L. (1995). Promoting strategic learning by post secondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 170–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, D. L. (1996). The strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Nueva York City, N.Y.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, D. L. & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaigneau, S. E. & Castillo, R. D. (2000). Fiabilidad de la Entrevista de Evaluación Metacognitiva. Iber Psicología, 5 (2). http://www.fedap.es/IberPsicologia/iberpsi5-2/indiceip5-2.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Chanquoy, L. & Negro, I. (1996). Subject-verb agreement errors in written productions: A study of French children and adults. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 553–570.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 8, 13.
   Google Scholar
• Crain-Thorenson, C., Lippman, M. Z. & Mcclendon-Magnunson, D. (1997). Windows on comprehension: Reading comprehension processes as revealed by two think-aloud procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (4), 579–592.
   Google Scholar
• Desoete, A., Royers, H. & Buysse, A. (2001). Metacognition and mathematical problem solving in grade 3. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 435–449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, E. S., Deshler, D. D. & Schumaker, J. B. (1989). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities to generate and use task-specific strategies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 108–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Englert, C. S. & Mariage, T. V. (2003). The sociocultural model in special education interventions. En H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 450–470). Nueva York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Englert, C., Raphael, T., Fear, K. & Anderson, L. (1988). Students' metacognitive knowledge about how to write informational texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 18–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Everson, H. T. & Tobias, S. (1998). The ability to estimate Knowledge and Performance in College: A metacognitive analysis. Instructional Science, 26, 65–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faigley, L., Cherry, R. D., Jolliffe, D. A. & Skinner, A. M. (1993). Assessing writers' knowledge and processes of composing (3rd ed). New Jersey: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Fidalgo, R. & García, J. N. (2007). Intervención metacognitiva en la composición escrita: Revisión de Modelos e Investigación. Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, 60 (4), 347–375.
   Google Scholar
• Fidalgo, R. & García, J. N. (Coords.) (2008a). Instrucción de la autorregulación y el autoconocimiento (metacognición) en la composición escrita. Barcelona: Davinci Continental.
   Google Scholar
• Fidalgo, R. & García, J. N. (2008b). La metacognición en los modelos teóricos clásicos de la composición escrita. En R. Fidalgo & J.N. García (Coords.), Instrucción de la auto-regulación y el auto-conocimiento en la composición escrita (pp. 23–34). Barcelona: Davinci Continental.
   Google Scholar
• Fidalgo, R. & García, J. N. (2008c). El desarrollo de la competencia escrita a través de una enseñanza metacognitiva de la escritura. Cultura y Educación, 20 (3), 325–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fidalgo, R., Torrance, M. & García, J. N. (2008). The long term effects of writing strategy instruction for young writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 672–693.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fidalgo, R, González-pienda J. A., García, J. N. & Núñez, J. C. (2004). El conocimiento Metacognitivo en Matemáticas: Una propuesta de Evaluación. En F. Vicente Castro, M. I. Fajardo, M. I. Ruiz, A.V. Díaz (Coords.), Contextos Psicológicos de Aprendizaje (pp. 233–248). Badajoz: Psicoex.
   Google Scholar
• Forget, M. A. (1999). Comparative effects of three methods of staff development in content area reading instruction on urban high school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. old Dominion University.
   Google Scholar
• Fortunato, I., Hecht, D., Tittle, C. & Alvarez, L. (1991). Metacognition and problem solving. Arithmetic Teacher, 39 (4), 38–40.
   Google Scholar
• Foulin, J. (1995). Pauses and rates: The temporal parameters of writing. Annee psychologique, 95 (3), 483–504.
   Google Scholar
• Foulin, J.-N. (1998). To what extent does pause location predict pause duration in adults' and children's writing? Cahiers do psychologie cognitive, 17 (3), 601–620.
   Google Scholar
• García, J. N. & Bausela, E. (2004). Relación del conocimiento de la persona, de la tarea y de la estrategia en relación a la escritura con la coherencia y productividad de la composición escrita, en niños/as con y sin DA y/o BR. Revista de Educación, 334, 223–234.
   Google Scholar
• García, J. N. & Fidalgo, R. (2003a). Diferencias en la conciencia de los procesos psicológicos de la composición escrita: mecánicos frente a sustantivos y otros. Psicothema. 15 (1), 41–48.
   Google Scholar
• García, J. N. & Fidalgo, R. (2003b). Cambios en la metacognición de los procesos psicológicos de la escritura en estudiantes de 3o de Educación Primaria a 3o de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada. 56 (2), 239–253.
   Google Scholar
• García, J. N. & Fidalgo, R. (2004). El papel del autoconocimiento de los procesos psicológicos de la composición escrita en la calidad de las composiciones escritas. Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada. 57 (3), 281–298.
   Google Scholar
• García, J. N. & Fidalgo, R. (2006). Effects of two self-regulatory instruction programs in students with Learning Disabilities in writing products, process and self-efficacy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29 (3), 181–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García, J. N. & Fidalgo, R. (2008a). Fostering the self-regulation of the recursive thinking involve in the writing composition. En A. Valle, J.C. Núñez, R. González-Cabanach, J. González-Pienda & S. Rodríguez, (Eds.), Handbook of instructional resources and their applications in the classroom (pp. 171–185). Nueva York: Nova Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• García, J. N. & Fidalgo, R. (2008b). The Orchestration of Writing Processes and Writing Products: A Comparison of Learning Disabled and Non-Disabled 6th Grade Students. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6 (2), 77–98.
   Google Scholar
• García, J. N. & Fidalgo, R. (2008c). La perspectiva metacognitiva en los actuales modelos teóricos de la composición escrita. En R. Fidalgo & J.N. García (Coords.), Instrucción de la auto-regulación y el auto-conocimiento en la composición escrita (pp. 35–44). Barcelona: Davinci Continental.
   Google Scholar
• García, J. N., Marban, J. & De Caso, A. (2001). Evaluación colectiva de los procesos de Planificación y Factores Psicológicos en la composición escrita (EPPyFPE). En J.N. García, Dificultades de aprendizaje e intervención psicopedagógica (pp. 151–155). Barcelona: Ariel.
   Google Scholar
• Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• González, M. & Martín, I. (2006). Análisis del rendimiento en composición escrita y sus dificultades en Educación Secundaria. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 29 (3), 315–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. En C.A. MacArthur S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research. (pp. 187–207). Nueva York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (1989). A component analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students' compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and Transcription Skills in Writing and Writing Development. Educational Psychologist, 35 (1), 3–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. En H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.). Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323–344). Nueva York: The Guildford Press
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Schwartz, S., Charles, A. & Mcarthur, A. (1993). Knowledge of Writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26 (4), 237–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, A. J. K. (2002). Learning Procedures and goal specificity in learning and problem solving. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14 (1), 105–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guterman, E. (2003). Integrating written metacognitive awareness guidance as a psychological tool to improve student performance. Learning and Instruction, 13, 633–651.
   Google Scholar
• Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J. & Graesser, A. C. (1998). Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, C. W. (2000). Manual for the Executive Process Questionnaire: A self-report measure of metacognitive strategies. Unpublished manuscript. East Carolina university.
   Google Scholar
• Hammouri, H. A. M. (2003). An investigation of undergraduates' transformational problem solving strategies: cognitive/metacognitive processes as predictors of holistic and analytic strategies. Assessment y Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (6), 571–588.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, K. R. (1986). The effects of cognitive behaviour modification on private speech and task performance during problem solving among learning disabled and normally achieving children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 63–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartman, H. J. (Ed.) (2001): Metacognition in Learning and Instruction. Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. En M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaun Associates, inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, J. R. (2004). What triggers revision? En L. Allal, L. Chanquoy & P. Largy (Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol 13. Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 9–20). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, J. R. & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. En L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Hoge, R. D. & Butcher, R. (1984). Analysis of teacher judgments of pupils achievement levels. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 777–781.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. E. & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist. 22, 255–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juliebö, M., Malicky, G. V. & Norman, C. (1998). Metacognition of young readers in an early intervention programme. Journal of Research in Reading, 21 (1), 24–35.
   Google Scholar
• Kellogg, R. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory and Cognition, 15 (3), 256–266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellogg, R. T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. American Journal of Psychology, 103 (3), 327–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of Working Memory in Writing. En C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Kellogg, R. T. (1999). Components of working memory in text production. En M. Torrance & G. C. Jeffery (Eds.), The cognitive demands of Writing: Processing capacity and working memory in text production (pp. 43–62). Ámsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kluwe, R. H. (1982). Cognitive Knowledge and executive control: Metacognition. En D. R. Griffin (Ed.), Animal mind- Human mind (pp. 201–224). Nueva York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, J. M. & Chinnappan, M. (1994). Generative Activity during Geometry Problem Solving: A comparison of the performance of high achieving and low achieving high school students. Cognition and Instruction, 12 (1), 61–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecuona, M. P. (1999). Pensar para escribir: un programa de enseñanza para la composición escrita. Madrid: CIDE.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. E. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems? Memory and Cognition, 23, 767–779.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. E. (1996). Writing Signatures. En C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing Theories, methods, individual differences and applications, (pp. 149–161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, C. M. & Olive, T. (2002). Real time studies in writing research: Progress and Prospects. En T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 1–8). Dordrecht, A.A.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated Recall: a report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29 (6), 861–878.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macarthur, C. A., Graham, S. & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Handbook of writing research. Nueva York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Macarthur, C., Graham, S. & Schwartz, S. (1991). Knowledge of revision and revising behaviour among learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 61–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macleod, W. B., Butler, D. L. & Syer, K. D. (1996). Beyond Achievement Data Assessing Changes in Metacognition and Strategic Learning. Paper presented as a part of a coordinated Symposium at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, Nueva York, N.Y.
   Google Scholar
• Negro, I., Levy, C. M. & Chanquoy, L. (2000). Subject verb agreements errors: Effects of working memory load in English. Paper presented at the EARLY SIG Writing conference, 2000. Verona, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Núñez, J. C., González-pienda, J. A. & Roces, C. (2002). Evaluación de las estrategias de aprendizaje. En J.A. González—Pienda, J. C. Núñez, L. Álvarez & E. Soler (Coords.), Estrategias de Aprendizaje. Concepto, evaluación e intervención (pp. 39–52). Madrid: Pirámide.
   Google Scholar
• Núñez, J. C., González-pienda, J. A., González-pumariega, S., Roces, C., García, M. & Álvarez, L. (1997). Cuestionario de evaluación de procesos metacognitivos en alumnos de enseñanza secundaria (CEMP-ESO). Oviedo: Departamento de Psicología.
   Google Scholar
• O'neil, H. F. & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive inventory: Potential for alternative assessment. The Journal of Educational Research, 89 (4), 234–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olive, T. & Levy, C. M. (Eds.) (2002). Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing. Dordrecht, A.A.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Olive, T., Kellogg, R. T. & Piolat, A. (2002). The triple task technique for studying the process of writing. En T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 31–61). Dordrecht, A.A.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Panaoura, A., Philippou, G. & Christou, C. (2003). Young Pupils' metacognitive ability in Mathematics. III Conference of the European Research in Mathematics Education. 28 February–3 March. Bellaria-Italia.
   Google Scholar
• Pereira-Laird, J. A. & Deane, F. P. (1997). Development and validation of a self-report measure of reading strategy use. Reading Psychology, 18 (3), 185–235.
   Google Scholar
• Perorard, M., Velásquez, M., Crespo, N. & Viramonte, M. (2002). Conocimiento metacognitivo del lenguaje escrito: instrumento de medida y fundamentación teórica. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 25 (2), 128–246.
   Google Scholar
• Perry, N. E. & Meisels, S. J. (1996). How accurate are teacher judgments of students' academic performance? Working paper series, National Center for Educational Statiscis. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Research and improvement.
   Google Scholar
• Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., García, T. & Mckeine, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of motivated strategies learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Piolat, A. & Olive, T. (2000). How can the process and cost of writing texts be studied? The triple task methodology. Anne Psychologique, 100 (3), 465–502.
   Google Scholar
• Piolat, A., Olive, T., Roussey, J.-Y., Thunin, O. & Ziegler, J. (1999). SCRIPTKELL: A tool for measuring cognitive effort and time processing in writing and other complex cognitive activities. Behaviour research methods, instruments, and computers, 31 (1), 113–121.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Radford, D. L., Ramsey, L. L. & Deese, W. C. (1995). Demonstration assessment: Measuring conceptual understanding and critical thinking with rubrics. The Science Teacher, 62 (7), 52–55.
   Google Scholar
• Ransdell, S. & Levy, M. (1996). Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency. En M. Levy & S. Ransdell, (Eds.) The science of writing Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 93–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Royer, J. M., Cisero, C. A. & Carlo, M. S. (1993). Techniques and procedures for assessing cognitive skills. Review of Educational Research, 63 (2), 201–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T., Janssen, D., Van DER Pool, E., Schilperoord, J. & Van Wijk, C. (1996). Hierarchical text structure in writing products and writing processes. En G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van Der Bergh & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research (pp. 473–492). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an Empirical Model of EFL Writing Processes: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9 (3), 259–291.
   Google Scholar
• Sasaki, M. (2004). A Multiple-Data Analysis of the 3.5 Year Development of EFL Student Writers. Language Learning, 54 (3), 525–582.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheuer, N., De LA Cruz, M., Huarte, M. F., Caíno, G. & Pozo, J. I. (2001). Escribir en casa, aprender a escribir: la perspectiva de los niños. Cultura y Educación, 13 (4), 425–440.
   Google Scholar
• Schilperoord, J. (1996). The distribution of pause time in written text production. En G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van Der Bergh & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research (pp. 21–36). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schilperoord, J. (2002). On the cognitive status of pauses in discourse production. En T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 61–89). Dordrecht, A.A.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Schilperoord, J. & Sanders, T. (1997). Pauses, cognitive rhythms, and discourse structure; an empirical study of discourse production. En W. A. Leibert, G. Redeker & L. Waugh (Eds.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 247–269). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Schilperoord, S. & Sanders, T. (1999). How hierarchical text structure affects retrieval processes: Implications of pause and text analysis. En G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing Volume 4. Knowing what to write. Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt, C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children's awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43 (7), 454–459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 19, 460–475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sitko, B. M. (1998). Knowing How to Write: Metacognition in Writing Instruction. En D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice (pp. 93–116). Londres: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A. & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children's knowledge and Regulation. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 21, 51–79.
   Google Scholar
• Stough, L. M. & Palmer, D. J. (2003). Special Thinking in Special Settings: A Qualitative Study of Expert Special Educators. The Journal of Special Education, 36 (4), 206–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stratman, J. F. & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1994). Reactivity in Concurrent Think-aloud Protocols. Issues for Research. En P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing. Reflections on Research Methodology. (pp. 89–112). Londres: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Supaporn, S., Dodds, P. & Griffin, L. (2003). An ecological Analysis of Middle School Misbehaviour Through Student and Teacher Perspective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 328–349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swanson, H. L. (1993). An information processing analysis of learning disabled children's problem solving. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 861–893.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tobias, S. & Everson, H. T. (1998). Research on the assessment of metacognitive knowledge monitoring. Paper presented at Symposion on Metacognition: Assessment and Training, at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, C.A.
   Google Scholar
• Tobias, S., Everson, H. T. & Laitusis, V. (1997). Do metacognitive skills transfer across domains? Paper presented at a Symposium on Assessing Metacognitive Knowledge Monitoring, at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, I.L.
   Google Scholar
• Tobias, S., Everson, H. T. & Tobias, L. (1997). Assessing monitoring via the discrepancy between estimated and demonstrated Knowledge. Paper presented at a Symposium on Assessing Metacognitive Knowledge Monitoring, Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, I.L.
   Google Scholar
• Torrance, M., Fidalgo, R. & García, J. N. (2007). The teachability and effectiveness of cognitive self-regulation in sixth grade writers. Learning and Instruction, 17, 265–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V. & Robinson, E. J. (1999). Individual differences in the writing behaviour of undergraduate students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 189–199.
   Google Scholar
• Van DER Pool, E. (1996). A text-analytical study of conceptual writing proceses and their development. En G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van Der Bergh & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research (pp. 456–472). Amsterdam: Amsterdam university Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wade, W. M. & Buxton, M. (1999). Using think-aloud to examine reader-text interest. Reading Research Quarterly, 34 (2), 194–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstein, C. E., Schukte, A. & Palmer, D. (1987). Learning and Study strategies inventory. Clearwater, FL: HyH.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, J. (2001). Methodological Difficulties of Assessing Metacognition: A New Approach. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference. Fremantle.
   Google Scholar
• Winne, P. H. & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring Self-regulation Learning. En M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 532–564). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, D., Bisby, J., Glenn, J. & Gardner, H. (1990). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education, 17, 31–74.
   Google Scholar
• Wong, B. Y. L. (1999). Metacognition in writing. En R. Gallimore, D. Bernheimer, D. MacMillan, D. Speece & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Developmental perspectives on children with high incidence disabilities (pp. 183–198). Papers in honor of Barbara K. Keogh. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Wong, B., Butler, D., Ficzere, S. & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching students with learning disabilities and low achievers to plan, write and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29 (2), 197–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, B., Butler, D., Ficzere, S. & Kuperis, S. (1997). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities and low achievers to Plan, write and revise compare and contrast essays. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12 (1), 2–15.
   Google Scholar
• Wong, B. Y. L., Harris, K. R., Graham, S. & Butler, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies instruction research in learning disabilities. En H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323–345). Nueva York: The Guildford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wong, B., Wong, R. & Blenkinsop, J. (1989). Cognitive and Metacognitive aspects of learning disabled adolescents' composing problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 310–323.
   Google Scholar
• Wray, D. (1994). Literacy y awareness. Londres: Hodder y Stoughton.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, B. J. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, B. J. & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a proficient writer: A self-regulatory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar