Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Stimulated recall interviews were classified as on-line activity recordings or retrospective self-reports depending on whether the study analysed the on-line processes recorded, or only interview data.

  2. Country of the studies was identified using first authors’ affiliation.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, S., & Nesi, H. (2012). A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 25–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29, 369–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2013). Writing in the university: Education, knowledge and reputation. Language Teaching, 46, 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2016). Methods and methodologies in second language writing research. System, 59, 116–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavelle, E., & Bushrow, K. (2007). Writing approaches of graduate students. Educational Psychology, 27(6), 807–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackiewicz, J., & Thompson, I. K. (2014). Talk about writing. New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olive, T., Kellogg, R. T., & Piolat, A. (2008). Verbal, visual, and spatial working memory demands during text composition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(4), 669–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2014). International handbook of emotions in education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, P. A., & DeCuir, J. T. (2002). Inquiry on emotions in education. Educational Psychologist, 37, 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, M., Thomas, G., & Robinson, E. (2000). Individual differences in undergraduate essay-writing strategies: A longitudinal study. Higher Education, 39, 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. (2007). Sociocultural perspectives on academic regulation and identity: Theoretical issues. In 12th Biennial conference for research on learning and instruction. Budapest, Hungary.

  • Wisker, G. (2015). Developing doctoral authors: Engaging with theoretical perspectives through the literature review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y.-F. (2011). A reciprocal peer review system to support college students’ writing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 687–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, H. C. (2014a). Exploring how collaborative dialogues facilitate synchronous collaborative writing. Language Learning and Technology, 18(1), 23–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 73–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

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).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Facultat de Psicologia, Ciències de l’Educació i de l’Esport Blanquerna, Universitat Ramon Llull, C/Císter 34, 08022, Barcelona, Spain

    Anna Sala-Bubaré & Montserrat Castelló

Authors
  1. Anna Sala-Bubaré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Montserrat Castelló
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Sala-Bubaré.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 31 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sala-Bubaré, A., Castelló, M. Writing regulation processes in higher education: a review of two decades of empirical research. Read Writ 31, 757–777 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9808-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9808-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation