Writing serves as the solidification of thought by the extension of spoken language to tactile form. It can be a representation, a jubilant array of art, a story, data, news, or love. Writing is dynamic, important, and can stand to make or break the academic progress and success of many students.
One avenue to improve writing is through the concept of self-regulation. Self-regulation can be described as the process for which the writer regulates their own structure, organization, standard, voice, thoughts, and presentations (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). As such, writing is often referred to as a linear process of simply organizing thoughts, writing, and editing (Rohman, 1965). However, an intrinsic look reveals that the process of writing is dynamic—as mentioned earlier—it spans no set means of logical formation and does, in fact, vary dramatically from a linear progression of pre-writing, writing, and editing (Bereiter & Scardamalie, 1987). As Zimmerman (2002) explains, writers who self-regulate display use of a wide array of tools such as time management, self-evaluation, self- attributions, and their own beliefs upon self-efficacy and task interest. As such, though these are particular skills, Zimmerman also explains that it is not exactly the harnessing of such skills that defines self-regulation in relation to writing, it is the method of utilizing them as a self-generated internal process (of thoughts, feelings, or behavior) to formulate writing, or learning, that is directed towards academic goals (Zimmerman, 2000, 2002).
Phases and Subprocesses of Self-Regulation. From B. J. Zimmerman and M. Campillo, “Motivating Self-Regulated Problem Solvers.” In B.J. Zimmerman, Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview.
If writing is not an organized function like we’ve all been told in school: brainstorming/organizing, writing, and editing, than what is it?
Writing is much more than just a three-step process—as most people would agree. Writing, as Flower and Hayes (1980) explain, is environmental input, long term memory—how knowledge is applied to a topic, and the writing process—as a three step process. Though this is but one perspective of model of writing, the process typically resembles something similar and follows the same pathway for how writing occurs. Where they differ is typically associated with the cognitive analysis of the process between knowledge, thought, and the production of sentences (three step process) (Bereiter & Scardamaila (1987).
The model of self-regulation within the writing process takes a macroscopic view through input from social, motivational, and behavioral processes—where by the collective is thought to structure the efficacy of self-regulation (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). In that, writing is intimately involved with the entire picture of how both cognitive processes occur, how the environment affects them, and the process of writing itself—through formation, editing, and re-editing.
My experience with writing is one part of my academic history that I have thought a lot about. In high school my writing was thought to be required, arduous, not worth my time, and not a clear extension of where I believed my efforts should be spent. However, it was one situation that changed everything for me. I was in Iraq somewhere between 2002 and 2004 when I was taking an introductory Sociology class. I thought my writing was strong, solid, and mistake proof—I was dead wrong. I asked a coworker to read one of my first papers during that semester and it came back more red than white or black from the ink and paper. The guy I asked to revise my paper had been an editor for the Princeton University Press and could edit with the best of them. For whatever reason, I took that as a challenge to reduce how much red went on my papers thereafter and from such I have learned a better way to write (however, finding the time to write correctly still evades me).
So, without such a flashbulb intervention, how can academic writing be markedly improved for students? One simple intervention can help.
Identify the Problem: Young writers often lack or have difficulties with many areas of writing that can stand to be improved: ineffective methods, revising, unrealistic self-efficacy, and a lack of knowledge (Santangelo, Harris, & Graham, 2007). The target audience is younger writers of all grade levels and would probably best benefit secondary students.
Identify a Solution: Through the use of modeling and emulation, writers will improve their writing skills through the improvement of both self-efficacy and self-regulatory processes. The theoretical background for this intervention is marked by Bandura’s (1986) idea of modeling through observation and the research completed by Zimmerman and Kitsantas’ (2002)
Set Goals and Design an Intervention: The goals would be centered around the improvement of self-regulatory and self-efficacy which would then further the refinement and improvement of writing skills. As such, the intervention would simply be conducted through the process of having one class of writing students (presumably within an English class) observe a successful writing process that resulted in a positive outcome whereby learning occurred, corrections were made, and an improvement was demonstrated. Additionally, and as a constant, a similar video would be shown that only showed writing, a three step process, or a negative occurrence of writing ability—this could also be accomplished by allowing students to not watch a video at all. This would be conducted in a set time frame whereby the students would take a survey or an analysis of their self-regulatory and efficacy ratings and a writing sample and then watch the video, refine their skills, and then take the analysis over and provide another writing sample. This could be done through a month long period.
Implement the Intervention: Implementation would involve testing, watching the video, and then eventually retesting. It would be conducted in two different class rooms over the period of one month.
Evaluate: As mentioned earlier, retesting would be conducted to see changes in writing ability and self-regulatory and efficacy effects. As such, if increases in notable areas of writing and regulatory and efficacy scores demonstrate advancement, then the intervention is a success and optimization can occur. Otherwise, the intervention should be changed to hopefully provide positive results.
In conclusion, the intrinsic picture of how writing occurs is deeply seated in cognitive, environmental, and social structures. In that, self-regulating skills have been proven to dynamically support academic achievement through improvements in writing (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004). As such, writing is dynamic and has the propensity to improve, through social psychological means, to better academic performance in writing and ultimately throughout life.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29-58.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalie, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg and E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50).
Rohman, D. G. (1965). Pre-writing the stage of discovery in the writing process. College Composition and Communication, 16(2), 106-112.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attainment of self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 660-668. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.66
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 73-101. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0919
Written by Morgan L. DeBusk-Lane