Self-Regulation and Writing: Where Do We Go from Here?

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 22, 102–114 (1997)ARTICLE NO. EP970920

COMMENTARY

Self-Regulation and Writing: Where Do We Go from Here?

STEVE GRAHAM AND KAREN R. HARRIS

School of Education and Department of Special Education, University of Maryland

Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) present a social cognitive model of self-regulatedwriting. We offer four caveats concerning Zimmerman’s and Risemberg’s model. First,self-regulation is a field containing multiple theoretical perspectives, and descriptionsconsiderably different from the one offered by Zimmerman and Risemberg can beconstructed. Second, self-regulation may play a more modest role in writing thancommonly assumed. Third, a high level of self-regulation is a necessary but not suffi-cient condition to become an expert writer, but the development of a moderate to highdegree of self-regulation may be enough to become a competent writer. Fourth, theeffects of self-regulation are not always positive. Areas in need of future research arealso examined and methods for promoting self-regulatory behaviors in writing areidentified. q 1997 Academic Press

Writing is commonly viewed as a difficult and demanding task, requiringextensive self-regulation and attentional control (Kellogg, 1996; McCutchen,in press). As Flower and Hayes (1980) noted, ‘‘a great part of the skill inwriting’’ involves the ability to exert deliberate control over the process ofcomposing (p. 39). Not surprisingly, the role of self-regulation in writingis acknowledged, either explicitly or implicitly, in most current models ofcomposing (see Beaugrande, 1984; Flower & Hayes, 1980; Hayes, 1996;Grabowski, 1996), and constructs such as the writing ‘‘monitor’’ (Flower &Hayes, 1980) and executive control (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986) are usedto account for the self-regulation and volitional processes that occur duringwriting. Many of the details and implications of self-regulation, however, arenot fully specified in current models of writing, including descriptions of keyprocesses, the source of motivation to self-regulate when writing, and factorsthat nurture or inhibit the development of self-regulated writing. Zimmermanand Risemberg (1997) rectify this situation, at least in part, by providing amore fully developed theoretical description of self-regulated writing.

Zimmerman’s and Risemberg’s (1997) primary tenet is that skilled writingdepends on high levels of self-regulation because writing is typically anintentional and self-initiated and self-sustained activity. To bolster this claim,they present anecdotal evidence, showing that professional writers use a vari-ety of strategies to regulate the environment, their behavior, or covert pro-cesses when writing. A second (although unstated) implication is that thedevelopment of self-regulation in writing is an important instructional goal,

102

0361-476X/97 $25.00Copyright q 1997 by Academic PressAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ab03h$0920 01-09-97 23:10:57 cepa AP: CEP

103SELF-REGULATION AND WRITING

and that such processes and strategies can be explicitly taught to beginningand developing writers. They review a variety of studies where the explicitteaching of self-regulated writing strategies enhanced the writing performanceof nonprofessional writers.

To more fully describe the role of self-regulation in writing, Zimmermanand Risemberg (1997) applied a previously developed social cognitive theoryof self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 1989) to the area of writing. Themodel describes the ‘‘self-initiated thoughts, feelings, and actions that writersuse to attain various literary goals, including improving their writing skillsas well as enhancing the quality of the text they create’’ (Zimmerman &Risemberg, 1997, p. 76). According to the model, self-regulation occurs whena writer uses personal (or self-) processes to strategically regulate behavioror the environment. Erica Jong, author of Fear of Flying, for example, regu-lated her writing behavior, by setting a goal to write 10 pages every day(Safire & Safire, 1992).

Three general classes of strategies (strategies for controlling behavior, theenvironment, and covert processes) are used to exert control when composing,and these strategies interact reciprocally via an enactive feedback loop. Theloop involves a cyclic process of monitoring and reacting to feedback aboutthe success of specific self-regulatory strategies. This enables one self-regula-tory process to influence another and, most importantly, allows writers tolearn from the consequences of their actions. Self-regulatory strategies thatare perceived to be successful are more likely to be retained, whereas thosethat are not are more likely to be abandoned. Moreover, a writer’s sense ofefficacy can be enhanced or diminished, depending upon the perceived successof the employed strategies. One’s sense of efficacy, in turn, is hypothesizedto influence intrinsic motivation, use of self-regulatory processes, and eventualliterary attainment.

Zimmerman’s and Risemberg’s (1997) social cognitive model of writingself-regulation provides a timely and important perspective for understandinghow writing works—one that has implications not only for theory buildingin writing, but instruction as well. In our critique of Zimmerman’s and Ri-semberg’s model, we offer four caveats, describe areas in need of additionalresearch, and consider how teachers can foster the development of self-regu-lated writing.

CAVEATS

Other models and descriptions of self-regulated writing are possible. Inconsidering the role of self-regulation in writing, Zimmerman and Risemberg(1997) are purposefully bound by a specific theoretical heritage, namely socialcognitive learning. This is not necessarily a weakness, but it is important torealize that the academic domain of self-regulation is represented by a diverserange of theoretical traditions (see Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). Although

ab03h$0920 01-09-97 23:10:57 cepa AP: CEP

104 GRAHAM AND HARRIS

these theoretical perspectives share many underlying common beliefs (e.g.,learner’s can intentionally select, structure, and create advantageous learningenvironments), they differ greatly on a variety of issues, including the mecha-nisms for acquiring self-regulation, motivational dimensions of self-regulatedlearning, and explanations for why people fail to self-regulate. For example,operant theorists argue that self-regulation is motivated by external rewardsand punishments, phenomenologists contend that self-regulation is motivatedby a global sense of self-esteem, while other theorists favor motives rangingfrom concept assimilation to self-efficacy (Zimmerman, 1989b). Thus, de-scriptions different from the one drafted by Zimmerman and Risemberg canbe constructed; descriptions that vary considerably, depending upon the under-lying theoretical perspective.

The role of self-regulation in writing may be more modest than commonlyassumed. Although Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) make a compellingcase for the importance of self-regulation in skilled writing and as a necessaryingredient in the composing of beginning and developing writers, self-regu-lated writing behaviors often play a modest role in everyday, real life writingsituations. Many writers’ approach to composing minimizes the role of self-regulation, not all writing occasions require a high degree of self-regulationor effort, and self-regulatory processes are not always evident in the compos-ing of professional writers.

Many students, including some in college, approach composing by con-verting writing tasks into tasks of telling what one knows—that is, writing-as-remembering or writing-by-pattern (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986). Anyinformation that is somewhat topic appropriate is retrieved from memory andwritten down, with each preceding phrase or sentence stimulating the genera-tion of the next idea. Little attention is directed at rhetorical goals, the organi-zation of the text, the needs of the audience, or the constraints imposed bythe topic. The role of planning, revising, and other self-regulation processesare minimized, and this retrieve-and-write process typically functions like anautomated and encapsulated program, operating largely without metacognitivecontrol (McCutchen, 1988). This is not to suggest that the knowledge tellingapproach to writing is necessarily thoughtless, rather it is primarily forwardmoving, with little recursive interplay between composing processes (Scar-damalia & Bereiter, 1986).

Although school-aged students show little high-level, goal directed behav-ior in their writing, there are exceptions—individual exceptions as well asnotable accomplishments in a specific genre or on a particular assignment(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1982). One possible reason why self-regulated writ-ing is not more evident among students (and most adults) is that many ofthe tasks they are assigned or personally initiate evoke relatively little self-regulatory behavior. For instance, students are often asked to complete writingassignments based on their beliefs, feelings, and recollections of their life

ab03h$0920 01-09-97 23:10:57 cepa AP: CEP


experiences (Graham & Harris, 1994a; Stotsky, 1995). It is assumed thatasking students to write about what they know will heighten involvement andincrease willingness to write as well as work on their writing. Writing abouta personal experience, however, may make fewer demands on cognitive pro-cesses, diminishing the need to self-regulate, as content is readily availableand organized in one’s memory (Graham & Harris, 1994b; Scardamalia &Bereiter, 1986). Similarly, many of the writing tasks that occur as a part ofeveryday life, writing reminders or a note to a friend for instance, can usuallybe done with little effort and without having to resort to high-level, goaldirected behavior.

Even when writing tasks are sufficiently demanding to evoke self-regulatorybehavior, there are times when such processes are not needed, as the writer,to coin a colloquial term, is in the groove. Writing is a ‘‘joy—fluent, fluid,and seemingly effortless’’ (Ransdell & Levy, 1996, p. 93). Moreover, incontrast to the personal descriptions of self-regulating professional writersoffered by Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997), other authors and novelistsprovide different descriptions of the writing process, ones where planning,revising, and other self-regulatory processes are not as prominent or notablylacking (see the Paris Reviews). For example, Harriet Beecher Stowe had solittle idea of what was going to happen from moment to moment when writingUncle Tom’s Cabin, that she thought the book was written through her byanother hand (Burnham, 1994). Similarly, other novelist such as NormanMailer when writing Barbary Shore (Kazin, 1967), Hervey Allen—author ofAnthony Adverse (Plimpton, 1989), and Tony Hillerman—a popular mysterywriter (Burnham, 1994) indicated they did little or no advanced planning,letting their work develop as it was written.

This is not meant to imply that expertise in writing develops in the absenceof a varied, flexible, and efficient set of self-regulatory processes and strate-gies. Lillian Hellman, author of Little Foxes, for instance, indicated that whenshe first started writing plays, she needed a ‘‘solid foundation to build upon’’(Kazin, 1967, p. 123), and would develop a two or three page outline oradvanced plan before starting to write. As she gained more experience, how-ever, she was able to start writing without a clear conception of what wouldhappen in the play, discovering it as she wrote. More importantly, the exten-sive literature on expertise in adults, including research on writing (Hayes &Flower, 1986; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986), indicates that experts in avariety of fields posses highly developed strategic and metacognitive skillsfor performing domain-specific tasks (Meichenbaum & Biemiller, 1992).

Expertise in writing requires more than high levels of self-regulation. Al-though a high level of self-regulation appears to be necessary in the devel-opment of expertise in writing, expert writers require much more thanself-regulation (an issue not addressed in the paper by Zimmerman andRisemberg). Alexander (in press) argues that expertise is realized when do-

ab03h$0920 01-09-97 23:10:57 cepa AP: CEP


main-specific knowledge, strategic knowledge, and motivation are highly de-veloped and function in relative synchronicity. In other words, expertise inwriting requires high levels of skill, will, and self-regulation. More promising,however, Alexander maintains that helping novices obtain a moderate to highlevel of self-regulation (or skill or will for that matter) should be effectivein moving them from an initial state of acclimation in a domain to one ofcompetence.

Attempts to self-regulate are not always successful. The application of self-regulatory procedures in writing do not always have positive effects. Studentsmay develop ineffective or maladaptive strategies or apply generally effectivestrategies in ineffectual or even harmful ways. For example, self-talk oftenassumes a regulatory function in writing (Harris & Graham, 1992). The stressexperienced by apprehensive writers, however, is directly related to the self-deprecating, negative self-talk they engage in while writing (Madigan, Lin-ton, & Johnson, 1996). Perhaps our most favorite example of the negativeapplication of self-regulatory procedures in writing involves two famous, butfictional cartoon characters, Calvin and Hobbes. Calvin is suppose to writean essay for school. Instead of engaging in productive self-regulatory behav-iors to help him successfully complete the assignment, he and Hobbes spendtheir time developing a thinking cap as a prothesis for generating ideas. Theyspend so much time developing the thinking cap, no time is left for actuallywriting the paper.

AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) call for additional inquiry into howwriters develop self-regulatory behaviors, the role that social processes playin this development, and the linkages between self-regulation, self-beliefs,and the motivation to write. We expand upon these recommendations byintroducing some additional avenues for investigation.

Research on self-regulation in writing needs to move more fully into themainstream of schools and educational research (Graham & Harris, 1994b).Most of the research completed to date has involved either college studentsor children with writing problems or special needs (approximately 70% of thestudies reviewed by Zimmerman and Risemberg fall within these parameters).Although such research is useful and needs to be continued, model and theorybuilding (as well as instructional practices) will benefit from a broader andmore representative base of research.

Naturalistic studies are needed to provide a fuller and richer picture ofthe development of self-regulation in writing. A great deal remains to belearned about the breadth, depth, and course of development of self-regulationin writing. Relatively few descriptive, developmental studies of writing andself-regulation are available. Most of the current research involves traditionalexperimental studies (approximately 75% of the studies reviewed by Zimmer-

ab03h$0920 01-09-97 23:10:57 cepa AP: CEP


man and Risemberg were experimental). Notably lacking are longitudinalinvestigations tracing the self-regulatory processes children use while learningto write. The development of a comprehensive and integrated theory of writ-ing, and the design of developmentally appropriate writing practices involvingself-regulation, depends upon further investigation in this area.

Additional research examining the effectiveness of specific self-regulationwriting strategies, and combinations of strategies, is needed. The studiesreviewed by Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) provide a reasonable levelof evidence that the use of individual self-regulatory elements, such as goalsetting, cognitive writing strategies, self-evaluative standards, self-instruc-tions, and self-monitoring (in combination with other self-regulatory strate-gies), can have a positive impact on writing. Other self-regulatory strategies,such as environmental structuring, mental imagery, time planning and man-agement, and self-consequating, have received much less attention or wereapplied with a select population; thus, additional validation is needed toestablish their impact on writing.

A specific self-regulatory element can be used flexibly to serve a varietyof different functions. This was demonstrated in a naturalistic study by Wal-voord, Anderson, Breihan, McCarthy, Robison, and Sherman (1995) wherecollege students applied outlining in ingenious ways, depending upon thedemands of the writing task and how the teacher structured the writing pro-cess. Not all adaptations were equally effective, however. For instance somestudents used outlining too narrowly, merely as boxes to dump unrelatedinformation. Thus, future studies should examine how specific self-regulationstrategies are actually used and for what purposes, and what functions andadaptations are useful or not.

The Walvoord et al. (1995) study also found that students intermingled theuse of outlining with other writing strategies. Several programs of researchhave taught students to use multiple self-regulatory strategies, resulting inimproved writing performance (e.g., Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, &Steven, 1991; Graham & Harris, 1993, 1996; Wong, in press), but much ofthis research has focused on students with special needs. Additional researchwith other populations is clearly needed.

Greater attention needs to be directed at identifying why writers minimizeor fail to use self-regulatory processes during writing. An essential questionin the study of self-regulation, is why people don’t self-regulate more often.Mindless behavior in everyday situations is far more common than usuallyassumed (Langer, 1985; Salomon & Globerson, 1987). In the area of writing(as well as other domains), the employment and development of self-regula-tion appears to involve a complex interaction of personal, task, and contextvariables. This can be readily demonstrated by considering the self-regulatoryprocess of planning. The level of planning students engage in can be influ-enced by personal factors, such as their working memory capacity (Tetroe,

ab03h$0920 01-09-97 23:10:57 cepa AP: CEP


1984), level of anxiety (Rose, 1980), knowledge of the writing topic(McCutchen, 1986), and their mastery of the mechanics of writing (Graham,1990); task factors, such as difficulty (Penningroth & Rosenberg, 1995) andtime constraints (Many, Fyfe, Lewis, & Mitchell, 1996); and contextual fac-tors, such as level of teacher guidance (Walvood et al., 1995), the composingmedium (Haas, 1989; Halpern & Liggett, 1984), and collaboration with otherstudents (O’Donnell, Dansereau, Rocklin, Lambiote, Hythecker, & Larson,1985). This is by no means an exhaustive list of the variables that influenceplanning or other self-regulatory writing processes, but it does demonstratethat the decision to regulate or not is a complex one, subject to a variety ofinfluences.

The explanations for why individuals minimize or fail to engage in self-regulatory behavior vary considerably. Salomon and Globerson (1987) con-tend that people who are not inclined to be particularly mindful, may fail tonotice situations that call for greater self-regulatory behaviors, and respondin familiar and routinized ways. In contrast, Meichenbaum and Biemiller(1992) argue that self-regulation should not be viewed as a trait-like individualdifference dimension, but rather as a transactional concept, involving a fitbetween the perceived difficulty of the task and the perceived and actualabilities of the individual to perform the task. As they noted, highly self-directed children evidenced variability in levels of self-regulation within thesame academic setting and across different academic settings.

McCutchen (in press) has presented perhaps the most fully developed expla-nation for why children limit their use of self-regulation during writing. Sheproposes that the physical act of transcribing text is so demanding for youngwriters that they develop a writing strategy (i.e., knowledge telling) thatcircumvents or minimizes the use of planning, revising, and other self-regula-tory processes, because they also exert considerable processing demands.Such an approach to writing may serve an adaptive function for beginningwriters, as it allows them to transcribe and generate text, without exceedingtheir processing capacities. McCutchen further argues that the limited ap-proach to revising and planning that children develop as a result of usingthe knowledge telling approach, persists long after the processing demandsassociated with transcription are reduced, possibly because knowledge tellingis expedient and gets the job done in many writing situations.

Although Garner (1990), Zimmerman and Schunk (1989), and others (Solo-mon & Globerson, 1987) offer additional explanations for why self-regulationdoesn’t occur more often in academic settings, the systematic study of self-regulatory failures has received relatively little attention in the writing litera-ture (see Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1982 and McCutchen, in press for notableexceptions). Future studies need to focus on both proximal and distal sourcesof self-regulation. Proximal sources (e.g., the type of writing task) may deter-mine the kinds of self-regulatory strategies employed, but distal factors (e.g.,

ab03h$0920 01-09-97 23:10:57 cepa AP: CEP


casual attributions for success) may constrain proximal ones (Solomon &Globerson, 1987).

PROMOTING SELF-REGULATED WRITING

We have argued elsewhere (Graham & Harris, 1994b, 1996), that an im-portant goal in writing instruction is to help beginning and developing writersincorporate additional self-regulatory procedures into their writing, so thatthey become more resourceful, reflective, and goal oriented. Scardamalia andBereiter (1985) made a somewhat similar proposal, suggesting that instruc-tional efforts be directed at improving self-regulatory mechanisms in writing,as they provide the means for accomplishing specific writing tasks and gener-ating information that can lead to additional changes in strategic behavior.

The learning environment. One approach to increasing writers’ self-regula-tory behavior is to create a writing environment or writing situations thatincrease the likelihood of self-regulation. An absolutely essential ingredientin creating such an environment is providing ample opportunities to self-regulate (Graham & Harris, 1984b). Development of self-regulation in writingwill undoubtably be inhibited if the environment or writing assignments areso tightly structured that there is little room for writers to initiate and directtheir own behaviors. Teachers can provide opportunities to self-regulate byencouraging writers to work on projects of their own choosing, develop uniqueinterpretations or personal opinions about teacher assigned topics, constructpersonal plans for accomplishing writing tasks, work at their own pace, andarrange a suitable writing environment.

Teachers can also increase the likelihood that writers will self-regulate bymaking writing an enjoyable and interesting activity. When students do notvalue writing or what they write, they may fail to use the resources at theirdisposal or pursue a needed strategic remedy (Graham & Harris, 1996). Teach-ers can seek to avoid such apathy by involving students in legitimate orauthentic writing tasks aimed at a real audience and by creating a classroomenvironment that is supportive, pleasant, and nonthreatening. For example, afourth-grade classroom we observed this year took on the task of cleaningup a local stream. Part of this effort involved writing letters to the mayor,city council members, and other influential townspersons. They also wroteand obtained a grant form the city government to help them clean up thestream. The students were committed to this project, and it showed in theirwriting. They were self-directed, planning and doing most of the work withonly minimal teacher guidance, and were able to effectively orchestrate theirwriting behaviors and the classroom environment in order to meet their goalsand deadlines.

As we noted earlier, not all writing tasks engender the same level or eventypes of self-regulation. Thus, another way to increase the likelihood thatwriters will self-regulate is to use writing tasks that require the employment

ab03h$0920 01-09-97 23:10:57 cepa AP: CEP


of such processes. Highly structured problem-solving writing assignments(e.g., trying to produce a composition that leads to a prespecified ending)provide one example of such a task (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1985). It is alsopossible that self-selected tasks, within the writer’s range of competence,engender self-regulatory behavior. Meichenbaum and Biemiller (1992) re-ported that when children work on self-selected classroom tasks they cancomplete competently, they are more likely to self-regulate—defining, plan-ning, monitoring, and evaluating their work.

Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) propose that the successful use of self-regulatory processes provides information that can amplify perceptions ofcompetence and, this in turn, influence motivation, use of self-regulatoryprocesses, and writing attainment. We agree that people learn by doing, butalso maintain that the processes writers use to monitor their self-regulatoryefforts should be sharpened and enhanced (Graham & Harris, 1994b). Forinstance, writers knowledge of their approach to writing and their perceptionsof what they do successfully can be enriched by encouraging them to thinkabout and share with others the types of things they do as they compose.Similarly, writers can be encouraged to maintain a journal where they reflecton the processes they used when writing, selecting specific observations todiscuss with the teacher or peers.

Tackling self-regulation head-on. Another avenue for increasing self-regu-latory behavior in writing is to confront the problem head-on, seeking tochange writers’ self-regulatory behaviors more directly. This can includeteachers overtly modeling how they regulate their writing (Englert et al.,1991), establishing predictable routines in which self-regulation activitiessuch as planning and revising are expected and reinforced (Calkins, 1986),or the use of cooperative tasks that allow writers to learn to accommodateeach other’s suggestions and styles, paving the way for each writer to incorpo-rate new influences into their approach to composing (McCutchen, 1988).

Scardamalia and Bereiter (1985) indicate that writers may possess appro-priate self-regulatory writing processes, such as planning or evaluation, butfail to place them in their habitual writing routine, because of the processingdemands associated with their use. Their research has focused on helpingwriters activate additional self-regulatory procedures by providing routinesthat simplify the target process and trigger its onset and offset. They havedemonstrated that children can incorporate additional self-regulatory mecha-nism, such as revising (e.g., Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1983), into their existingroutines when provided with such procedural support. As Scardamalia andBereiter (1986) indicated, however, children don’t always use the proceduralsupports as intended and additional research is needed to determine if thesupported processes become internalized or habitualized over time. Further-more, the impact of procedural support on the resulting written product may belimited, as methods for boosting the child’s faculty with the specific elementsunderlying the target process are not provided (Graham, in press).

ab03h$0920 01-09-97 23:10:57 cepa AP: CEP


Another approach for helping writers incorporate additional self-regulatoryprocesses into their writing is to explicitly teach them how to use theseprocedures. Our research (Graham & Harris, 1996, Harris & Graham, 1996)has concentrated on teaching children with writing and learning problems thesame kinds of strategies and processes more sophisticated writers use whenthey compose. Children are explicitly taught how to use task specific strategiesfor processes, such as planning and revising, in combination with proceduresfor regulating the use of these strategies, the writing process, and undesirablebehaviors (such as impulsivity or negative self-talk) that may impede per-formance.

Initially, children are provided with considerable support in using task-specific strategies and supporting self-regulatory procedures through model-ing, explaining, reexplaining, and assisting whenever necessary. This scaffold-ing is gradually withdrawn as children become increasingly able to apply thetarget procedures independently. Skills essential to using the strategies aretaught, and discussions concerning when, where, and how to apply the strate-gies occur throughout instruction. In addition, perceptions of writing compe-tence are refined and sharpened through the use of self-monitoring and teacherfeedback. Such metacognitive information about the strategies is emphasizedthroughout instruction, providing both the impetus for goal setting and a formof attributional training (Harris & Pressley, 1991).

Explicitly teaching students with writing and learning problems to incorporateadditional self-regulatory procedures into their writing has resulted in improvedwriting, increased knowledge of writing, greater confidence, and changes inhabitual writing patterns (cf. Danoff, Harris, & Graham, 1993; Graham & Harris,1989; Graham, MacArthur, Schwartz, & Voth, 1992). As with procedural support,however, strategy instruction is also plagued by issues concerning children’sinternalization of the inculcated procedures over time. Children don’t always usethe strategies as intended, may experience difficulty in adapting them to newsituations, or may discontinue their use over time. Consequently, follow-up proce-dures designed to promote maintenance and generalization may be needed insome cases (Harris & Graham, 1992).

Although additional research on self-regulation instruction in writing isneeded, researchers and theorists have already identified a number of theconditions that are crucial to fostering the development of self-regulatorybehavior in writing. The challenge for future research is not only to increaseour understanding of how to promote self-regulated writing, but to determinethe conditions that promote self-regulation at different levels of writing devel-opment.

CONCLUDING COMMENT

Writing cannot be understood without understanding how the processes ofwriting are invoked and sequenced and the writer’s environment and behaviors

ab03h$0920 01-09-97 23:10:57 cepa AP: CEP


are orchestrated and managed. The model presented by Zimmerman andRisemberg (1997) will hopefully contribute to the evolution of writing modelsby stimulating more fully developed descriptions of the control processes inwriting as well as promoting additional interest and inquiry in this area. Wehope that their ideas and our reaction to them will promote an active andconstructive dialogue among those interested in the development of writingand self-regulation.

REFERENCES

ALEXANDER, P. (in press). Stages and phases of domain learning: The dynamics of subject-matterknowledge, strategy knowledge, and motivation. In C. Weinstein & B. McCoombs (Eds.),Strategic learning: Skill, will, and self-regulation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

BEREITER, C., & SCARDAMALIA, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role ofinstruction in a development process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychol-ogy (Vol. 2, pp. 1–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

BURNHAM, S. (1994). For writers only. New York: Ballantine Books.CALKINS, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.DANOFF, B., HARRIS, K. R., & GRAHAM, S. (1993). Incorporating strategy instruction within the

writing process in the regular classroom. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 195–322.DE BEAUGRANDE, R. (1984). Text production: Toward a science of composition. Norwood, NJ:

Ablex.ENGLERT, C., RAPHAEL, T., ANDERSON, L., ANTHONY, H., STEVEN, D., & FEAR, K. (1991).

Making writing and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in writing in regular andspecial education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337–373.

FLOWER, L., & HAYES, J. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and jugglingconstraints. In L. Gregg & R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

GARNER, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theoryof settings. Review of Educational Research, 60, 517–529.

GRABOWSKI, J. (1996). Writing and speaking: Common grounds and differences toward a regula-tion theory of written language production. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The scienceof writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 73–92). Mah-wah, NJ: Erbaum.

GRAHAM, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students’ compositions.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791.

GRAHAM, S. (in press). Executive control in the revising of students with writing and learningdifficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology.

GRAHAM, S., & HARRIS, K. R. (1989). A components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction:Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 81, 353–361.

GRAHAM, S., & HARRIS, K. R. (1993). Self-regulated strategy development: Helping studentswith learning problems develop as writers. Elementary School Journal, 94, 169–181.

GRAHAM, S., & HARRIS, K. R. (1994a). The effects of whole language on children’s writing: Areview of literature. Educational Psychologist, 29, 187–192.

GRAHAM, S., & HARRIS, K. R. (1994b). The role of self-regulation in the writing process. In D.Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues andeducational applications (pp. 203–228). New York: Erlbaum.

GRAHAM, S., & HARRIS, K. R. (1996). Self-regulation and strategy instruction for students whofind writing and learning challenging. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of

ab03h$0920 01-09-97 23:10:57 cepa AP: CEP


writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 347–360). Mah-wah, NJ: Erbaum.

GRAHAM, S., MACARTHUR, C., SCHWARTZ, S., & VOTH, T. (1992). Improving the compositionsof students with learning disabilities using a strategy involving product and process goalsetting. Exceptional Children, 58, 322–335.

HAAS, C. (1989). How the writing medium shapes the writing process: Effects of word processingon planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 181–207.

HALPERN, J., & LIGGETT, S. (1984). Computers and composing: How the new technologies arechanging writing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on CollegeComposition and Communication, Urbana. (ERIC Document No. ED 243 105).

HARRIS, K. R., & GRAHAM, S. (1992). Self-regulated strategy development: A part of the writingprocess. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competenceand literacy in school (pp. 278–312). San Diego: Academic Press.

HARRIS, K. R., & GRAHAM, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composi-tion and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

HARRIS, K. R., & PRESSLEY, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactivestrategy construction. Exceptional Children, 57, 392–405.

HAYES, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In M.Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences,and applications (pp. 1–28). Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.

HAYES, J., & FLOWER, L. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41,1106–1113.

KAZIN, A. (1967). The Paris review: Writers at work. New York: Viking.KELLOGG, R. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.),

The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–72). Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.

LANGER, E. (1985). Playing the middle against both ends: The usefulness of adult cognitiveactivity in childhood and old age. In S. Yussen (Ed.), The growth of reflection in children.New York: Academic Press.

MADIGAN, R., LINTON, P., & JOHNSON, S. (1996). The paradox of writing apprehension. In M.Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences,and applications (pp. 295–308). Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.

MANY, J., FYFE, R., LEWIS, G., & MITCHELL, E. (1996). Traversing the topical landscape:Exploring students’ self-directed reading-writing-research processes. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 31, 12–35.

MCCUTCHEN, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development ofwriting ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431–444.

MCCUTCHEN, D. (1988). ‘‘Functional automaticity’’ in children’s writing: A problem of metacog-nitive control. Written Communication, 5, 306–324.

MCCUTCHEN, D. (in press). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition.Educational Psychology Review.

MIECHENBAUM, D., & BIEMILLER, A. (1992). In search of student expertise in the classroom: Ametacognitive analysis. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting aca-demic competence and literacy in school (pp. 3–56). San Diego: Academic Press.

O’DONNELL, A., DANSEREAU, D., ROCKLIN, T., LAMBIOTE, J., HYTHECKER, V., & LARSON, C.(1985). Cooperative writing: Direct effects and transfer. Written Communication, 2, 307–315.

PENNINGROTH, S., & ROSENBERG, S. (1995). Effects of high information-processing load on thewriting process and the story written. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 189–210.

PLIMPTON, G. (1989). The writer’s chapbook. New York: Viking.RANSDELL, S., & LEVY, M. (1996). Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency.

ab03h$0920 01-09-97 23:10:57 cepa AP: CEP


In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individualdifferences, and applications (pp. 93–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum.

ROSE, M. (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of language: A cognitive analysisof writer’s block. College Composition and Communication, 31, 389–401.

SAFIRE, W., & SAFIRE, L. (1992). Good advice on writing. New York: Simon & Schuster.SALOMON, G., & GLOBERSON, T. (1987). Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness in

learning and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 623–637.SCARDAMALIA, M., & BEREITER, C. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in

children’s knowledge processing. In S. Chipman, J. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinkingand learning skills: Current research and open questions (Vol. 2, pp. 563–577). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

SCARDAMALIA, M., & BEREITER, C. (1986). Written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbookof research on teaching. (3rd ed., pp. 778–803). New York: MacMillan.

SCARDAMALIA, M., & BEREITER, C. (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic andremedial capabilities in children’s composing. In M. Martlew (Ed.), The psychology ofwritten language: Development and educational perspectives (pp. 67–95). London: Wiley.

STOTSKY, S. (1995). The uses and limitations of personal or personalized writing in writingtheory, research, and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 758–776.

TETROE, J. (1984, April). Information processing demand of plot construction in story writing.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,New Orleans.

WALVOORD, B., ANDERSON, V., BREIHAN, J., MCCARTHY, L., ROBISON, S., & SHERMAN, K.(1995). Functions of outlining among college students in four disciplines. Research in theTeaching of English, 29, 390–421.

WONG, B. (in press). Research on genre-specific strategies in enhancing writing in adolescentswith learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly.

ZIMMERMAN, B. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B.Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: The-ory, research, and practice (pp. 1–25). New York: Springer-Verlag.

ZIMMERMAN, B., & RISEMBERG, R. (1997). Becoming a proficient writer: A self-regulatoryperspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.

ZIMMERMAN, B., & SCHUNK, D. (Eds.) (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:Theory, research and practice. New York: Springer-Verlag.

ab03h$0920 01-09-97 23:10:57 cepa AP: CEP

Documents

Self-Regulation and Writing: Where Do We Go from Here?