Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 757–777 | Cite as

Writing regulation processes in higher education: a review of two decades of empirical research

  • Anna Sala-Bubaré
  • Montserrat Castelló
Article
First Online:

Abstract

In Higher Education (HE), writers need to regulate their writing processes in order to achieve their communicative goals. Although critical for academic success and knowledge construction, writing regulation processes have been mainly researched in compulsory education rather than in HE, with no systematic review focused on this context. The purpose of this article was to build a comprehensive picture of the state of writing regulation research in HE by conducting a systematic analysis of the studies on this topic in the last two decades. Studies’ characteristics were analysed in light of both their theoretical perspective and objectives. Results indicated the three theoretical perspectives and diversity of objectives were equally represented. Some methodological characteristics, such as context of study, were significantly related to theoretical perspectives, while the selection of instruments depended on their objectives. A qualitative analysis of the studies showed that cognitive studies methods’ varied in relation to their objectives, while sociocognitive studies used heterogeneous methods, and sociocultural studies used similar methods regardless their objective. Writing regulation in HE is a growing field with great variety of topics and objectives, yet there are still some underdeveloped issues and research challenges such as integrating emotions in the analysis, looking for more comprehensive methods that account for regulation in situated HE writing contexts, and clarifying the conceptual underpinnings of the perspective of writing regulation adopted in each study.

Keywords

Writing regulation Higher education Writing monitoring Academic writing Composition process Writing regulation approaches 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports under the ‘Programa de Formación de Profesorado Universitario’ (FPU13/06957); and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness under the project ‘Researchers’ Identity Education in Social Sciences’ (CSO2013-41108-R).

Supplementary material

11145_2017_9808_MOESM1_ESM.docx (32 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 31 kb)

References

  1. Alamargot, D., Caporossi, G., Chesnet, D., & Ros, C. (2011). What makes a skilled writer? Working memory and audience awareness during text composition. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5), 505–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allal, L. (2000). Metacognitive regulation of writing in the classroom. In A. Camps & M. Millan (Eds.), Metalinguistic activity in learning to write (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez, I., Espasa, A., & Guasch, T. (2012). The value of feedback in improving collaborative writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 387–400.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.510182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alves, R. A., Castro, S. L., & Olive, T. (2008). Execution and pauses in writing narratives: Processing time, cognitive effort and typing skill. International Journal of Psychology: Journal International de Psychologie, 43(6), 969–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bazerman, C. (2013). A rhetoric of literate action: Literate action, Volume 1. Perspectives on writing. Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Butcher, K., & Kintsch, W. (2001). Support of content and rhetorical processes of writing: Effects on the writing process and the written product. Cognition and Instruction, 19(3), 277–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39–52.  https://doi.org/10.1080/030750700116000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castelló, M., Bañales, G., & Vega, N. A. (2010a). Enfoques en la investigación de la regulación de escritura académica: Estado de la cuestión. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(3), 1253–1282.Google Scholar
  11. Castelló, M., González, D., & Iñesta, A. (2010b). La regulación de la escritura académica en el doctorado: El impacto de la revisión colaborativa en los textos. Revista Espanola de Pedagogia, 247, 521–537.Google Scholar
  12. Castelló, M., Iñesta, A., & Corcelles, M. (2013). Learning to write a research article: Ph.D. Students’ Transitions toward Disciplinary Writing Regulation. Research in Teaching of English, 47(4), 442–477.Google Scholar
  13. Castelló, M., Iñesta, A., & Monereo, C. (2009). Towards Self-regulated academic writing: An Exploratory Study with graduate students in a situated learning environment. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7(3), 1107–1130.Google Scholar
  14. Castelló, M., & Mateos, M. (2015). Faculty and student representations of academic writing at Spanish universities/Las representaciones de profesores y estudiantes sobre la escritura académica en las universidades españolas. Cultura y Educación, 27, 477–503.  https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2015.1072357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cumming, A., & So, S. (1996). Tutoring second language text revision: Does the approach to instruction or the language of communication make a difference? Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(3), 197–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Bruijn-Smolders, M., Timmers, C. F., Gawke, J. C. L., Schoonman, W., & Born, M. P. (2016). Effective self-regulatory processes in higher education: research findings and future directions. A systematic review. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 139–158.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.915302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Silva, R., & Graham, S. (2015). The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency levels. System, 53, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ekholm, E., Zumbrunn, S., & Conklin, S. (2015). The relation of college student self-efficacy toward writing and writing self-regulation aptitude: Writing feedback perceptions as a mediating variable. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eklundh, K. S., & Kollberg, P. (2003). Emerging discourse structure: computer-assisted episode analysis as a window to global revision in university students' writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(6), 869–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In C. Macarthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 208–221). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  22. Eriksson, A.-M., & Makitalo, A. (2015). Supervision at the outline stage: Introducing and encountering issues of sustainable development through academic writing assignments. Text & Talk, 35(2), 123–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Escorcia, D. (2010). Conocimientos metacognitivos y autorregulación: una lectura cualitativa del funcionamiento de los estudiantes universitarios en la producción de textos. Avances En Psicologia Latinoamericana, 28(2), 265–277.Google Scholar
  24. Escorcia, D., & Fenouillet, F. (2011). Quel rôle de la métacognition dans les performances en écriture? Analyse de la situation d’étudiants en sciences humaines et sociales. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(2), 53–76.Google Scholar
  25. Ferrari, M., Bouffard, T., & Rainville, L. (1998). What makes a good writer? Differences in good and poor writers’ self-regulation of writing. Instructional Science, 26, 473–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Franklin, S. V., & Hermsen, L. M. (2014). Real-time capture of student reasoning while writing. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 10(2), 20121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gardner, S., & Nesi, H. (2012). A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  31. Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2012). The role of strategies, knowledge, will, and skills in a 30-year program of writing research (with Homage to Hayes, Fayol, and Boscolo). In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 177–196). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  33. Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879–896.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Guzmán-Simón, F., & García-Jiménez, E. (2015). The academic literacy at the university: A predictive study. RELIEVE - Revista Electronica de Investigacion Y Evaluacion Educativa, 21(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  35. Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113, 240–264.Google Scholar
  36. Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29, 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. He, T. H., Chang, S. M., & Chen, S. H. E. (2011). Multiple goals, writing strategies, and written outcomes for college students learning english as a second language. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 112(2), 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ho, M. (2015). The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review on EFL writers’ comments and revisions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hyland, K. (2013). Writing in the university: Education, knowledge and reputation. Language Teaching, 46, 53–70.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hyland, K. (2016). Methods and methodologies in second language writing research. System, 59, 116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Iñesta, A., & Castelló, M. (2012). Towards an integrative unit of analysis: Regulation episodes in expert research article writing. In C. Bazerman, C. Dean, J. Early, K. Lunsford, P. Null, S. Rogers, & A. Stansell (Eds.), International advances in writing research: Cultures, places, measures (pp. 421–448). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
  43. Järvelä, S., Volet, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2010). Research on motivation in collaborative learning: Moving beyond the cognitive-situative divide and combining individual and social processes. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 15–27.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kolb, K. H., Longest, K. C., & Jensen, M. J. (2012). Assessing the writing process: Do writing-intensive first-year seminars change how students write? Teaching Sociology, 41(1), 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kumar, M., & Kumar, V. (2012). Interactions with feedback: A case study of protocol analysis. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 20(4), 1161–1174.Google Scholar
  46. Lai, S. L., & Chen, H. J. H. (2015). Dictionaries vs concordancers: Actual practice of the two different tools in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(4), 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lavelle, E., & Bushrow, K. (2007). Writing approaches of graduate students. Educational Psychology, 27(6), 807–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lea, M. R., & Stierer, B. (2000). Student writing in higher education: New contexts. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education.Google Scholar
  49. Lee, G., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher–student relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Li, Y. (2013). Three ESL students writing a policy paper assignment: An activity-analytic perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S. (2016). Writing research from a cognitive perspective. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 24–40). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  53. MacArthur, C. A., Philippakos, Z. A., & Ianetta, M. (2015). Self-regulated strategy instruction in college developmental writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 855–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mackiewicz, J., & Thompson, I. K. (2014). Talk about writing. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  55. McCaslin, M., & Hickey, D. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 227–252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  56. Mikulski, A., & Elola, I. (2011). Spanish heritage language learners’ allocation of time to writing processes in English and Spanish. Hispania, 94(4), 715–733.Google Scholar
  57. Morrison, B. (2014). Challenges faced by non-native undergraduate student writers in an English-medium university. Asian ESP Journal, 10(1), 137–175.Google Scholar
  58. Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: A longitudinal study of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation, and evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29(2), 142–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nguyen, L. T. C., & Gu, Y. (2013). Strategy-based instruction: A learner-focused approach to developing learner autonomy. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nicolás-Conesa, F., Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2014). Development of EFL students’ mental models of writing and their effects on performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Olive, T., Kellogg, R. T., & Piolat, A. (2008). Verbal, visual, and spatial working memory demands during text composition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(4), 669–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2014). International handbook of emotions in education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Prat-Sala, M., & Redford, P. (2012). Writing essays: does self-efficacy matter? The relationship between self-efficacy in reading and in writing and undergraduate students’ performance in essay writing. Educational Psychology, 32(1), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54–66). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  65. Prior, P., & Shipka, J. (2003). Chronotopic lamination: Tracing the contours of literate activity. In C. Bazerman & D. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves, writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 180–238). Fort Collins, CO: Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
  66. Proske, A., Narciss, S., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Computer-based scaffolding to facilitate students’ development of expertise in academic writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 136–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ransdell, S., Levy, C. M., & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). The structure of writing processes as revealed by secondary task demands. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 2(2), 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Reynolds, T. H., & Bonk, C. J. (1996). Facilitating college writers’ revisions within a generative-evaluative computerized prompting framework. Computers and Composition, 13(1), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Roth, A., Ogrin, S., & Schmitz, B. (2016). Assessing self-regulated learning in higher education: A systematic literature review of self-report instruments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 23, 7–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560600837578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schutz, P. A., & DeCuir, J. T. (2002). Inquiry on emotions in education. Educational Psychologist, 37, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stapleton, P. (2010). Writing in an electronic age: A case study of L2 composing processes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (1994). The writing strategies of graduate research students in the social sciences. Higher Education, 27(3), 379–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Torrance, M., Thomas, G., & Robinson, E. (2000). Individual differences in undergraduate essay-writing strategies: A longitudinal study. Higher Education, 39, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Van Waes, L., Van Weijen, D., & Leijten, M. (2014). Learning to write in an online writing center: The effect of learning styles on the writing process. Computers & Education, 73, 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Walker, R. (2007). Sociocultural perspectives on academic regulation and identity: Theoretical issues. In 12th Biennial conference for research on learning and instruction. Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  78. Wisker, G. (2015). Developing doctoral authors: Engaging with theoretical perspectives through the literature review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yang, Y.-F. (2011). A reciprocal peer review system to support college students’ writing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 687–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yang, H.-C., & Plakans, L. (2012). Second language writers’ strategy use and performance on an integrated reading-listening-writing task. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 80–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Yeh, H. C. (2014a). Exploring how collaborative dialogues facilitate synchronous collaborative writing. Language Learning and Technology, 18(1), 23–37.Google Scholar
  82. Yeh, H.-C. (2014b). Facilitating metacognitive processes of academic genre-based writing using an online writing system. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(6), 479–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zanotto, M., Monereo, C., & Castelló, M. (2011). Estrategias de lectura y producción de textos académicos: Leer para evaluar un texto científico. Perfiles Educativos, 33(133), 10–29.Google Scholar
  84. Zhao, R., & Hirvela, A. (2015). Undergraduate ESL students’ engagement in academic reading and writing in learning to write a synthesis paper. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(2), 219–241.Google Scholar
  85. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultat de Psicologia, Ciències de l’Educació i de l’Esport BlanquernaUniversitat Ramon LlullBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options