Self-Regulated Writing Strategies of Junior High School Students in the Regular and Special Science Classes: An Analysis

Self-Regulated Writing Strategies of Junior High School Students in the Regular and Special Science Classes: An Analysis

Jessie G. Cordial^*, Ana Cristina G. Fortes

Sorsogon State University School of Graduate Studies

^*Corresponding author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000224

Received: 29 May 2025; Accepted: 05 June 2025; Published: 08 July 2025

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to investigate, describe and analyze the existing self-regulated writing strategies of special science and regular class junior high school students of Bulan National High School in Bulan, Sorsogon Philippines. The primary objectives of the study are to determine the participants’ self-regulated writing strategies and analyze these along the different stages of the writing process. The participants were 10 grade 8 regular class students and 10 grade 8 special science class students. The study used the qualitative research design with semi-structured interviews and focused group discussion as the primary tools for gathering the data and thematic analysis for the treatment of data. The results showed that the participants from both groups have 11 existing self-regulated writing strategies used along planning, translating, and reviewing stages of the writing process. These strategies can also be categorized as environmental, covert, or behavioral self-regulation strategies. The thematic analysis also allowed for the identification of the benefits of these strategies. Furthermore, there are strategies which are identified to be either unused by or unknown to the participants.

Keywords: Self-Regulation, Self-Regulated Writing Strategies, Planning, Translating, Reviewing

INTRODUCTION

Writing is a practical skill. This is not only true for a person working in the academe, but in various modern industries as well. Being such, language curriculums across the world place immense importance on writing instruction. However, it is not an easy skill to develop. It can be an exhaustive task that requires the use of various cognitive resources if it is to be done well. As Sedita (2019) pointed out, writing has different cognitive demands such as competence in critical thinking, syntax, text structure, writing craft, and transcription to do well in writing. These demands are not easy to meet. Much research reveals that the primary difficulty that students have is on not being competent enough in these.  Students have difficulties in generating ideas, grammar, mechanics in writing, and in organization of ideas. Additionally, there are studies that found affective difficulties such as anxiety. These difficulties cause students to either produce poor writing outputs or to avoid writing tasks at all.

Globally, these problems are felt by learners. Data shows how only a small portion of student population in various countries show competence in writing. In the U.S. for example, as cited by Dunn (2021), the 2021 National Assessment of Educational Progress for writing reported that 75% or students cannot write at a basic level. In the Philippines, the SEA-PLM National Report of 2019 which assessed students reading and writing literacy reported that Filipino students in Grade 5 level can scarcely produce simple texts with basic vocabulary and can only do very limited writing with fragmented ideas.

These facts prompt researchers to investigate or discover efficient methods for writing instructions. Recently, there has been a growing interest on self-regulation and how it can bolster writing. Barry Zimmerman, a leading researcher on self-regulated learning defines it as a metacognitive learning process wherein learners engage in goal setting, monitoring, and self-evaluation of their learning progress (Zimmerman 2002). In his research on Self-regulation and writing and other various studies as well such as that of De Lapaz and Graham (2022), self-regulation has been found to be an important aspect of effective writing. There are also many researches that prove the efficiency of injecting SRL strategy instruction in teaching writing (Graham et. al, 2012).

The researcher of the present study wishes to add to the growing body of knowledge on self-regulation by investigating the existing self-regulated writing strategies of junior high school students in the study’s locale. To the researcher, this is a means of contributing to the growing body of knowledge on how self-regulation influences writing.

Objectives of the study

This study aimed to determine the self-regulated writing strategies that special science class and regular class students of Bulan National High School regularly use whenever they write. Specifically, it aimed to:

1. Determine the self-regulated writing strategies of regular and special science class participants.
2. Analyze the strategies along the various stages of writing.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Many published literature and studies are relevant to this study. Much among these are those that were either or co-written by Barry Zimmerman. The workings of self-regulation in the learning process is described in a cyclical phases model by Zimmerman and Moylan (2002). Socio-Cognitive categories of self-regulation in writing are identified in an article written by Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997). In the similar article, specific self-regulated writing strategies are identified as well. Additionally, authors described the known self-regulated writing strategies used by famous writers.

Literature and studies discuss the importance of self-regulation strategy in writing. For instance, Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) asserted that high level writing requires not only great knowledge of vocabulary and grammar but also high level of self-regulation.  Graham et. (2012) conducted a widescale meta-analysis studies that prove the idea that self-regulated writing strategies indeed positively impact student writing. Additionally, De Lapaz and Graham (2002) recommended that teaching of self-regulation strategies must be included in writing instruction.

A leading approach for incorporating strategy teaching to writing instruction is the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) . In this approach, the teaching of a certain writing skill is coupled with learning different self-regulation strategies (TEAL Center., 2011). SRSD has been well studied in many different contexts and its mostly found to be effective. This is attested studies such as those done by Vaddapalli and Woerner (2012) , Mazeh and Nehme (2020), Camacho et al. (2023), Balsamo (2019), Garcia and Azuncion (2022), Duyaguit (2023), and Espiritu (2012).

 Despite the already vast numbers of research done on self-regulation and writing, there are still gaps that this study can bridge. One is that there has not been much research on self-regulation in the Philippines. In terms of writing and writing instruction, there are only a number of studies that were done such as those by Garcia, Asuncion, Duyaguit and Espiritu. This implies that self-regulation, specifically self-regulated writing, has not been widely studied in the country and deserves more attention. Also, in the context of this study, specifically the researchers work station, It is hard to come across the term Self-Regulation when discussions on language instruction occurs. It could be be because it is unknown or not being taken seriously. Either way, it implies that there isn’t much research being done on self-regulated writing for it to be noticed. The researcher sees this study as an impetus for the growth of research for self-regulation and self-regulated writing in the locale of the study.

Theoretical Frameworks

This study has a number of theoretical underpinnings. The first one is Zimmerman and Moylan’s (2002) model of the cyclical phases of self-regulation. It describes self-regulation as a process that occurs in three phases. These are forethought, performance, and evaluating. Strategies such as goal setting and strategic planning occur in the forethought phase. Application of selected strategies in the forethought phase and strategic monitoring of one’s performance happen in the performance phase. In the self-reflection phase, self-assessment strategies and self-reaction strategies are used. These phases happen in a cyclical fashion.

Aside from the cyclical model of self-regulation, this study is also guided by the cognitive process model of writing and assumed that the writing process happens as the model describes. According to this model (Flower and Hayes 1985), the writing process occurs in phases which may happen at any given time during composition. These phases are planning, translating, and reviewing. The development of the composition through these phrases is monitored by the writer and is influenced by the task environment and the writer’s long-term memory.

Adopting the process view is relevant to this study as it provides insights into specific phases of writing wherein the phases of self-regulated learning can be situated. For instance, strategies for the forethought phase can be used in the planning stage of the writing process. Strategies for the performance phase can be during the process of translating. The subprocesses of Self-Reflection (Self-evaluation and self-reaction) can be integrated into the reviewing phase. Additionally, self-reflection can also be integrated into the writer’s act of monitoring of his writing process. For instance, as a part of his monitoring process, the writer actively reflects on whether she set a plan, or she uses words/sentence structures/text structure that meets the standard that was set for her writing task.

Indeed, there is a fit between the cyclical process of self-regulation and the process model of writing; but there is another model that can encompass not just the key processes of writing but also its major resources such as the task environment and the writer’s long-term memory. In their 1997 article, Barry J. Zimmeran and Rafael Risemberg wrote about a social cognitive view of self-regulated writing. This view does not only describe how self-regulation occurs or are used in the key writing processes (planning, translating, reviewing). It also encompasses other aspects of the writing processes such as the writer’s environment.

Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) describe self-regulation in writing as self-initiated thoughts, feelings, or actions that writers use to attain goals to both improve their skills in writing and the quality of text they produce. Writing in the social-cognitive view is seen in three major processes namely personal processes, behavioral processes, and environmental processes. Corresponding to these processes are three classes of writer’s self-regulation: covert (personal) self-regulation, behavioral self-regulation, and environmental self-regulation. Covert self-regulation refers to adaptive use of cognitive or affective strategies such as setting a particular time in a day for writing or lowering self-evaluative standards to reduce anxiety. Behavioral self-regulation is the use of motoric performance strategies such as keeping a record of the number of pages written in a day. Environmental self-regulation pertains to context related strategies involving the writer to manipulate her environment to be more productive. An example of this is closing the doors and windows of a room to filter out distracting noise while writing.

Adopting the social cognitive view of writing in this study is important for a couple of reasons. First, this view, in contrast to the cyclical phases of self-regulation, focuses on the self-regulatory processes specific to writing. Second, it provides a multi-dimensional view of the self- regulated writing process. It does not only focus on the cognitive aspects of it. It also explains how self-regulation can be used to improve the writer’s environment and affective state for a better writing experience.

 Figure 1 shows the theoretical paradigm of the study. It illustrates how the cyclical self-regulatory phases described by Zimmerman and Moylan; and how the self-regulated writing strategies described by Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) can be situated in Flowers and Haye’s (1985) cognitive process of writing.

FIGURE 1

Fig. 1 Self-regulation phases and strategies situated in the stages of the writing process.

Scope and Limitations of the study

This study does not aim to study how self-regulated writing strategies develop in young writers. Nor does it investigate how self-regulation is used in learning how to write exclusively. It’s focus is on the existing strategies that the participants have been using regularly when writing which consequently influence their learning processes in terms of writing.

Additionally, the results of this study cannot represent the workings of Self-Regulation at every learning level and in every ESL/EFL context. The study will only focus on Junior high school ESL learners. Specifically, it will only involve grade 8 regular class students and special science class students of Bulan National High School. The intended participants’ experience cannot be equated to the experiences of younger or more mature learners when it comes to using Self-Regulated Writing strategies for writing.

Furthermore, it cannot represent the experiences of learners belonging to different ESL/EFL contexts. This is especially true to those learners whose first languages have a big proximity to the Philippine languages. Additionally, the expectations when it comes to writing proficiency for learners belonging to a different ESL/EFL context might not be the same to the expectations faced by Filipino ESL students. This is important to note as expectations affect the way they set objectives and goals for learning, thereby also affecting the way they regulate their own learnings.

METHODOLOGY

Research design

This study is descriptive in nature and made use of qualitative research design. Qualitative research is a way of understanding what and how people or groups ascribe meanings to social or human problems (Creswell 2009).

The qualitative design offers methods that allow researchers to get rich and in-depth data that can be used to describe the participants’ experiences. These include qualitative interviews, observations, focused group discussions etc. These qualitative methods are a part of the researcher’s primary consideration in choosing the qualitative design as these are the best methods that could be used to produce the data that this study needed. Furthermore, the treatment of these data required another qualitative method namely thematic analysis.

Using the qualitative research design, sufficient information about the self-regulated writing strategies used by the participants would be given. The presence of well-described data in this study accomplishes one of the study’s primary aim which is to enrich the existing literature written about Self-regulated Writing Strategies.

Participants

The participants of the study are 20 eighth grade students of Bulan National High School. This number is distributed evenly between regular and special science classes.

Regular class students follow the normal curriculum composed of eight disciplines which include their language subjects. Although the special science class students have the same number of language subjects and are taught the same in these, they have an additional subject which is research. In research, they are not only expected to conduct laboratory experiments. They are also expected to produce research reports and this requires competence in academic writing. It’s important that the differences of the two groups be considered in this study because the difference in their writing tasks may influence the existence or their use of self-regulated writing strategies.

Eight (8th) graders were selected because at such a level, special science class learners have already experienced writing research reports for research and therefore may already have higher expectations for themselves when it comes to writing as compared to the learners from regular classes.

To determine the participants from the population, purposive sampling was used. Baraceros (2016) states that in purposive sampling, the researcher selects participants based on their background knowledge about the research, the characteristics that they possess that are required in the research, and their willingness to participate in the study. The researcher’s reason for selecting the purposive sampling method is because in this study, certain characteristics are required from the participants. One is that the participants must be the top performing students in their English classes as they are the students who have the highest potential to use Self-Regulation in their writing. Second, the participants must be willing to join the study since they would be asked to devote time to various data gathering procedures that the researcher would conduct. The researcher aimed to avoid creating the impression to both the participants and stakeholders that learners were being forced to participate in a study while at the same, juggling school tasks that they were required to accomplish. More importantly, the research required the participation of students who have the highest potential to produce the data required for this study.

The participants were given pseudonyms during the conduct of the study. The ten participants from SSC are given the pseudonyms of letters A to J and the participants from the regular classes are given pseudonyms of letters H-Q. There are four male participants in the special science class and 6 females. Their ages range from 12 to 13 and their average grades in English in the previous school year ranges from 94 to 97. In the regular class, there are seven male participants and 3 females. Like the SSC participants, their ages range from 12 to 13; however, their averages in English in the previous school are relatively lower as it only ranges from 90 to 95.

Instruments

The primary instruments used in this study are interview and focused group discussion. Remler D. and Van Ryzin G., (2015) define interviews as qualitative methodological tools involving open-ended questions that allow respondents/participants to respond in their own words and that encourage detailed and in-depth answers. This is different from highly structured interviews where-in responses are confined in pre-determined, closed-ended questions.

The researcher used a semi-structured interview with five pre-determined questions. Follow-up questions were prepared in case the need to probe a participant’s answer is needed.

Focus group discussion is also used as an instrument in order to supplement the data gathered in the interviews. The FGD used has three parts. The first one is the introduction of the researcher, the study and the participants. the second one is the actual discussion with the researcher as the moderator. The last one is when the researcher entertained questions and clarifications about the study.

Data Collection

The interviews were done from September 16-20, 2024. The length of the time given is for the adjustments in the interview time of the participants. The researcher ensured that their interviews would not interfere with their classes or important school activities. With the consent of the participants, the researcher audio-recorded the interviews. This was for the eventual transcription of the responses for data treatment. All twenty participants participated in the interviews.

The focused group discussions were conducted on September 24-25, 2024. The first day was for regular class participants and the second day is for the Special Science class participants. The researcher opted to separate the two groups to ensure that the responses of SSC learners did not influence the responses of the regular class learners and vice versa. Three Special Science Class participants and Four Regular Class participants joined the focused group discussions. Unlike the individual interviews, the participants in the FGD did not consent to having the discussions audio recorded. Thus, the researcher opted to noting down the gist of significant responses given by the participants. Also, only a number of the participants joined. There were only 3 for the special science class group and four for the regular class group. The primary reason for those who refused are apprehensions and anxiety when discussing serious and personal topics in groups.

Data Analysis

Recordings from the interviews were transcribed and notes from the FGD were analyzed using thematic analysis.  Javadi & Zarea (2016) described thematic analysis as an approach for extracting meanings, concepts and themes from qualitative data such as interview transcriptions, field notes, political documents, pictures and videos. This was used to arrive at specific Self-Regulated Writing strategies that are used by the participants in writing.

Much of the categories and themes in the analysis are pre-determined using the strategies identified by Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997); however, the researcher allowed for the identification of other previously unidentified strategies in case unique themes emerge. The Benefits of using Self-Regulated Writing Strategies were listed as well. Furthermore, strategies that are identified in literature but not described by the participants are also listed.

RESULTS

After careful analysis of the data gathered through the interviews and the focused group discussions, the following results were generated:

Existing Self-Regulated Writing Strategies

The thematic analysis resulted in the identification of various strategies used by the participants in self-regulating their writing performances. The names for these strategies are derived from the strategies described in Zimmerman and Risemberg’s (1997) article entitled “Becoming a Self-Regulated Writer: A Socio-Cognitive Perspective”.

In total, there were eleven (11) strategies that were identified. All these strategies emerged from the responses of the participants in both special science classes and regular classes. The strategies are the following:

1. Environmental structuring
2. Using books/Internet Sources
3. Tutor/peer review
4. Goal setting
5. Finding intrinsic value in writing
6. Cognitive strategies
7. Positive self-talk
8. Rest and return strategies
9. Self-reaction
10. Self-verbalization
11. Rewards

The strategies along the stages of writing

Table 1 Self-Regulated Writing Strategies

Seen in table 1 are the eleven (11) specific strategies that are identified from the responses of participants in the interviews and focused group discussions. These strategies may be used in only one of the stages of writing or it may be used across all stages.

These strategies are reported by the participants in both the special science classes and regular classes. None of it is unique in a specific group. In the thematic analysis, it is also shown that the difference in the frequency of how the strategies emerge in the responses of the participants in both groups is also very slight.

  The specific strategies are placed under 3 self-regulated writing categories. Environmental structuring, tutor/peer review, and using books or internet sources are categorized as environmental strategies. Goal setting, finding intrinsic value, cognitive strategies, positive self-talk, self-reaction, and rest and return strategy are categorized as covert strategies. Self-verbalization and rewards are categorized as behavioral strategies.

Another idea that is shown in table 5 is that some of these strategies are not unique in just a single stage of writing. for instance, using books/internet sources is a strategy that is not only used in planning. There are participants who reported that they use such a strategy during actual writing whenever the situation permits it. another strategy that is used in multiple stages are cognitive strategies. Participants reported using it both in translating and the reviewing/evaluating stage of their writing process.

In summary, there are eleven strategies that emerged from the responses of the participants. These can be categorized as environmental, covert or behavioral strategies. Furthermore, these strategies may occur in just one or in multiple stages of the writing process.

DISCUSSIONS

The participants’ self-regulated writing strategies

The data shows that the participants from both programs use a variety of Self-Regulation for both completing a writing task and improving their skill in writing.

One crucial point to note is that the participants in both programs use the same number of self-regulated writing strategies. This implies that despite the groups’ differences in terms of writing tasks (with SSC students having an additional writing task in research), do not significantly influence their choice of strategy.

Another key point to note is that the participants already have a considerably big repertoire of strategies in self-regulating their writing. This implies that the development of strategies can occur as early as junior high school or even the later levels in elementary. It further implies that approaches and methods be used to cater the development of these strategies in young learners.

More important than the previous points are the descriptions of the actual strategies used by the participants. The strategies are used in separate phases of writing and self-regulation: planning, monitoring, and evaluating. A strategy can occur only once, twice, or several times in various stages of writing. The strategies are also described in terms of it being an environmental, covert, or a behavioral self-regulated writing strategy. The strategies are described in the following:

Environmental structuring: The participants reported environmental structuring as a strategy that they use for writing. This is an environmental strategy that can be used either in the planning or the translating stage of the writing process. It is done in three different ways: Selection of environment, modification of environment and enhancement of environment. In selecting an environment, the respondents reported that they choose environments that are quiet, less crowded, comfortable and with good lighting. In terms of modification, the participants modify their environment by having things organized in their writing desks or clearing out things besides the materials that they only need for writing. The participants also reported enhancing their environments. The most popular method of enhancement for them is to put music on while writing. All these are used for enhancing their focus. Additionally, they reported music relaxes their mind reducing chances of making the writing process too anxiety provoking.

Using books/internet sources: The use of General reference books, fact sheets and various internet sources is another frequent strategy reported by the participants. This is an environmental strategy. This strategy is employed for both the planning stage and in the translating stage. In planning, the participants use it to source out information that they can use as supporting details for the main points that they are going to make in their write-ups. A participant also reported that she uses it to look for ways on how to structure her composition. For translating, General references and internet sources are used to look for appropriate words to use, for expanding their compositions when its lacking ideas, verifying the truthfulness of the information that they put in it or for sourcing ideas in case of occurrences of writer’s block.

This strategy can sound like a copying strategy wherein a student or a writer  simply copies information from sources as a means of adding or expanding the content or their composition. However, the participants responses show that they use what they get as either as basis or evidence for the points that they are making or ideas that they are expanding; for verifying the correctness of their works; or as models or standards for how they are going to structure their write-ups.

Goal setting: Goal setting is a covert strategy used by the participants in the planning stage. The goals that the participants set are either short term or long term. Short term goals are those that have immediate effect or impact on the writing task and long-term goals are those are related to improvement in one’s writing skills. The participants from both Special Science Class and Regular Class reported that they set targets or standards before they start composing. The short-term goals that they set vary. Most of the students, for example, aim to make their write-ups “as informative as possible” or aim to deliver the main point. Some aim to make their write-ups clear while others aim to have a highly organized write-up. Compared to short term goals, long term goals are cited less frequently. One student related that she always aims to see improvement in her writing in every writing task. Another student reported having a similar long-term goal.

Finding intrinsic value: It was also found that students assign intrinsic value to the task of writing, and this can be a form of strategy that students use as a part of their motivation to either start writing or finish a writing task. This is a covert strategy that can be used either in planning a writing task or while doing a writing task. When asked whether he gives himself rewards after finishing a writing task, a participant said “no”. he further explained that “the satisfaction of having produced a write-up is enough”. Another participant, when describing how she overcomes feelings of discouragements while writing, said that she reminds herself of “the benefits that [she] can get because of the experience (in writing) that she’s having.”

Cognitive strategies: The participants use cognitive strategies to navigate through the challenging aspects of the writing process and to ensure that they are producing a writing output which is at par to the standards that they have set. This is a covert strategy.

The most cited cognitive strategy is reviewing and revising a write-up. This can be done while composing or after composing. While composing, the participants re-read what they have written so far before proceeding to write more. For instance, a participant stops and reads her work after writing a paragraph to check it for completeness. It “helps [her] figure out” if “[she] has to stop there because it’s already good or [she] should continue because [her] essay needs more [information]”.

Reviewing while composing is also helpful for the participants in making certain that they are using appropriate vocabulary. A participant related that he “re-reads the sentences and replace words that are not right.” Another participant re-reads what she had composed so far to not only “check [her] grammar” and check the coherence of her write-up. She said she monitors whether “what [she] is writing is still connected to the introduction” or the parts she had already written.

Reviewing is also used for checking the clarity of one’s writing. A participant explains that he re-reads his work to check whether it’s understandable for him or not because “[he] considers it [his write-up] good if [he] can personally understand it and not good enough if [he] can’t understand it well.”

Another cognitive strategy used by the participants comes in a form of self-instruction. they use it overcome certain difficulties such as difficulties in finding the most appropriate words to use like when a participant uses “a word closely associated to a word that [he] is trying to remember”, a form of word association strategy he uses to arrive at the most appropriate words that he needs to use. The same participant also described how he imagines two versions of him “talking inside his head” arguing what information “to put” and “not to put” in his write-up. It is also a form of self-instruction that helps him ensure the quality and correctness of the information that he writes.

Other participants describe how they instruct themselves to keep their writing understandable to ensure clarity. They keep their writing “simple” so that it will stay “understandable for [them]” and for the target readers too. A participant described how he “avoids” or “changes” “highfalutin words” to keep his write-up simple and clear.

Positive self-talk: Positive Self-Talk is a covert strategy that is reported by participants in both special science class and regular class. This strategy is mostly used whenever the participants encounter a writer’s block, experience anxiety or feelings of discouragement in the middle of finishing a writing task. A participant described how she overcomes anxiety by telling herself encouragements such as “you can do this” or “this is easy”. Another participant does the same thing. She also tells herself that she “can do it”. They endure difficulties and stress by telling themselves that “[he] will finish it eventually.”

Self-verbalization: Self-verbalization pertains to personal articulation to enhance the process of writing, such as saying dialogue for a play aloud as one composes (Zimmerman and Risemberg 1997). This is a behavioral strategy used during translating. Self-verbalization helps the participants better check whether they wrote a sentence correctly and whether it sounds good enough for them. One of them said that reading his sentences aloud helps him in generating ideas. He said that “[he] reads to himself aloud” as it helps him in “stimulating more ideas” and that it allows her to “see mistakes in grammar or words.

Self-verbalization shares similarity to positive self-talk due to the way it’s done, which is mainly by verbalizing to oneself. However, there are differences between the two. Mainly, self-verbalization is the simple oral reading of one’s sentences or the entire composition to oneself for the purpose  of monitoring the soundness, correctness, and completeness of one’s write-up. Positive self-talk on the other hand is an affective strategy wherein a writer or a student verbalizes encouraging thoughts or phrases to oneself as a form of motivation when difficulties arise in the writing process.

Rest and return strategy: Many participants, especially in the special science class group, reported taking a break from a writing task to continue it on a later time. This is a form of rest and return strategy that is usually employed when learners/writers to reduce stress when experiencing anxiety, loss of focus, writer’s block, or other detrimental affective factors. This is a covert self-regulated writing strategy, and it is used during the translating stage.

The participants have varying ways of using their rest time. For instance, a participant gets “a bit of a break or a snack or watch [his] favorite episode of the series he’s watching” and he claims it gives him” more energy when [he] returns back writing”. Another participant, aside from resting, sometimes “get snacks” or “wash the dishes” and while she is “at it, [she] would think about phrases or sentences that [she] can add next.” She reports that she does it because writing can “sometimes be too draining.”

The participants also take varying durations of time when taking a break from a writing task. One participant said that the longest break she took before finishing a writing task is “two hours”. A different participant said it “depends on whether [she] already feels that [she] is ready to write. Student L said he leaves it for “a day” or “two” before he starts writing again.

In all these instances, the participants reported that they were able to finish their writing task. Rest and return allow them to alleviate stress and anxiety and gives them time to “recharge”. As writing can be a complex task, such a strategy is helpful for learner’s or writers to have an alternative (resting) instead of just giving up on it completely.

Self-reaction: Self-Reaction is a strategy wherein a learner/writer evaluates how well she has done in a writing task and reacts to it. A learner/writer’s awareness of how well she did affect her motivation to continue writing or how she does work on a writing task next time. A participant, when asked about the things that she does after writing said that she thinks about how “well” she has written her essay, and that it helps her “feel more encouraged because when [she] sees improvement, [she] feels happy and tells herself that [she] should do it more.” A different participant similarly expressed being encouraged to “write more” when she sees that she has done a writing task well.

Tutor/peer review: Another environmental strategy reported by the participants is the use of social sources such as tutors or peers. Tutors come in form of parents or teachers that the respondents use to either ask for assistance in verifying the correctness of their grammar for writing or for sourcing additional information to add to their existing ideas.

When asked about the strategies that he does whenever he encounters difficulties while writing, a participant said he “asks help from her mother” if he “encounters a word that he does not understand.

Peers and Teachers are useful for the respondents for evaluating the quality and correctness of their write-up. This can be done in the translating phase but mostly in the reviewing/evaluating phase. As a part of the things, she does after finishing a write-up, a participant explained how showing her writing to peers help her. She said that “Sometimes [she] would ask [her] friends to read it if they have time. [she] gets their feedback, and [she] uses those feedback to improve [her] writing.”

Interestingly, there are participants who reported not using this strategy often or not using it at all. This may be caused by these participants’ negative perception of it. As reported by one participant, he does not want to show his work to anyone because he does not want anyone to say anything bad about it. This is a manifestation of language learning/performance anxiety in form of fear of negative evaluation.

An important point to be clarified in the use of this strategy is the idea that it’s not self-regulated because other people are involved in it. It is important to note that people in this strategy are treated as resources that a student or writer strategically tap to either enhance or correct their write-up. More importantly, it is the student or writer who initiates the interaction with another person when the need arises, and not the other way around. This makes it a self-regulated.

Rewards: The most frequently cited behavioral strategy by the participants is giving themselves rewards after completing a writing task. The rewards that they give can come in form of food, playing mobile games, sleeping or watching an episode of their favorite series. Rewards function as either a form of validating one’s efforts in accomplishing a writing task and as a form of motivation to finish a writing task. Some participants reported that they reward themselves with “food” after accomplishing a writing task; a participant rewards herself with “sleep”; A different participant rewards himself with time to watch an episode of his “favorite series”; and and another one rewards himself by allowing himself to “play chess” or “use his phone” only after accomplishing a writing task.

Rewards may seem like a consequence which is only conceived of after writing . However, it becomes a strategy when, during the planning stage, it is strategically set as a consequence for a satisfactory writing performance or for just going through the difficult process of writing. This adds to the motivation of a student or a writer to start and finish a writing task despite the challenges that are involved in the process. Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) described how the famous writer Ernest Hemingway rewarded himself with a day of pleasurable activities whenever he meet his writing goals.

Benefits of the strategies

How Self-Regulated Writing Strategies benefit the respondents is something that can also be seen in data gathered through individual interviews and focused group discussions. Primarily, what Self-Regulation does for learners or writers is to lessen or get around with the challenges that come with writing tasks. More specifically, the respondents use Self-Regulation strategies to a.) better focus b.) alleviate of affective burdens c.) increase motivation d.) ensure good quality of writing e.) acquire helpful feedback.

One of the top concerns of the participants from both SSC and regular class is the possibility of getting distracted while working on a writing task. The distractions that the students are concerned about are external, those that are present in their environment. It is therefore important for them to look for a suitable place where there is a lesser chance of encountering distracting elements. This is one of their environmental strategies and helps them enhance their focus while writing. For instance, student H prefers a “quiet and peaceful” place because in it, he can “think properly”.

Almost all the participants in SSC and regular class replied affirmatively when asked whether they are particular about their environment when they write, and their preference mostly is like that of student H’s – a peaceful, quiet, less crowded place in order for them to focus more. Part of their strategies to enhance their focus involve modifying their writing environment or enhancing it by putting on music. All these strategies are consistent with the ideas of literature that look into “great” ways in order to write better. For instance, in Karin Russel’s (2012) book “Write Now”, selecting appropriate environment and modifying it is one of her first recommendations on how to write well.

Another benefit cited by the participants is how Self-Regulation Strategies allow them to overcome or get around with affective burdens such as anxiety, stress or writer’s block. They use various kinds of strategies for this. Primary among it is the rest and return strategy. Majority of the participants reported having felt better, readier, or recharged after taking a break from writing due to stress or feelings of discouragement. Another strategy used for alleviating affective burdens is positive self-talk. Participants reported talking to themselves in an encouraging manner whenever they felt anxious about the writing task.

The next benefit that the Participants get from using Self-Regulation is increase in their motivation to write. This benefit is derived using various strategies such as looking for intrinsic value in writing, giving rewards to oneself in accomplishing writing tasks, and self-reaction to a positive outcome in learning how to write.

Another way of increasing motivation for writing or for continuous practice of writing is done as a consequence of evaluating a written output – self reaction strategy. According to Zimmerman (2002), Self Reaction involves self-satisfaction that comes with a positive outcome in a writing performance. It directly affects a learner or a writer’s motivation to write more. Increase in self-satisfaction means increase in motivation and lesser self-satisfaction undermines motivation.

One of the top benefits that students get from Self-Regulating their writing process is how it ensures that the write-up that they produce are checked for quality. The participants often used cognitive strategies such as planning or reviewing and editing their works to make sure that there is minimal error in grammar, spelling, or punctuation; that there is sufficient information in it; that the work is coherent; that ideas are expanded, and that information is true and correct.

Another benefit that they get from Self-Regulation is that they get useful feedback on how to improve their write-ups or how to do better in writing. Eliciting feedback from peers or tutors allows the respondents to not only boost the chance that the quality of their write-up is good. It can also be a way for them to discover new strategies or ways to get around with difficulties or to do certain aspects of their writing better.

Unused strategies

There are other known self-regulation strategies that respondents did not mention in both the interview and in the focus group discussions. When the researcher asked them about it, the responses were either it’s not known or that it’s not really done or used. This section is about identifying and describing what these strategies are; and how, if used, it can potentially boost the learning and performance of the participants in writing.

First among these are strategies for self-monitoring one’s progress in writing. The respondents did report ways strategies for self-monitoring but these are limited only to reviewing the quality of one’s work while composing. They did not report any self-monitoring strategies that they can use for looking into their “long term” progress in writing or in learning how to write.

It is important to note that the participants consider their progress when it comes to improving their skills in writing. These are glimpsed through some of the “long term” goals that they set. As discussed, there are participants who, before writing, set goals wherein they “aim” to “improve” or “see improvements in [their] writing abilities.” However, none described ways in monitoring how they will see improvements in their writing skills.

Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) described self-monitoring as the overt tracking of one’s performance, such as keeping a record of number of pages written each day. It’s exemplified by their description of a rigorous way of self-monitoring done by a well-known British writer, Anthony Trollope. Zimmerman and Risemberg wrote:

 “British novelist Anthony Trollope (1946) wrote more than 50 novels and was perhaps the greatest record keeper in literature. When he began each new book, he would organize his personal diary into weeks, and he would set specific writing goals for each period. Faithfully recording the pages he completed each day, Trollop averaged 40 pages per week, never dropping below 20 pages and topping out at 112 pages for his most productive week.”

As a Self-Regulation strategy for writing, Self-monitoring could be very useful. It helps develop a learner or a writer’s self-awareness of his/her progress. It’s useful, for example, in checking whether specific goals are met in terms of getting more skilled writing. It can also be used to keep a record strategy that are useful or strategies that should be discarded. For instance, a learner can record the amount of time that they finish a writing task in various places. The learner, when reviewing his/her self-monitoring record, would see which among the places or situations he wrote fastest, and by consequences, adopt an environmental strategy wherein he/she chooses to write in that place (where he finished fastest) or at least a place/situation that is most similar to it.

 Another strategy not used or at least “overlooked” by the participants when writing is time planning. In the interview and focused group discussions, the students did mention about time in their writing process but only in the aspect of choosing a time of the day when they most write effectively. They do not, however, use more specific time planning strategies such as setting an amount of time wherein they must finish a writing task or dividing their time in a day for their writing tasks and other activities. The absence of such kind of strategies imply that the students do not deliberately do time planning when writing.

Another important strategy that the participants do not use are cognitive strategies for organization such as using outline or graphic organizers.

Research of Graham et al. (2013) indicates that students who plan (the organization of) their ideas in advance often produce writing that is more coherent and clearer. A more coherent and clearer write-up means a more organized write-up. The better the planning is, the more organized the ideas will be in composing.

The participants’ minimal use of organizing strategies has several implications: First is that they might see this strategy as ineffective; Second, they might look at it as time-consuming; Third, and most probably, they do not have sufficient knowledge about it and therefore, does not have the know-how in using it.

In summary, there are three known and important Self-Regulated writing strategies that are not employed by the participants of this study. Whether unknown to the learners or deliberately discarded by them, research has proven that these strategies are effective in both improving one’s skills in writing or in producing a quality output. Zimmerman (2002) reported that research on the quality and quantity of Self-Regulation strategies used by learners have high correlations to their performances. It would, therefore, be better if the respondents (for both programs) adopt these strategies as it will help to bolster their writing processes more.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study sought to determine and analyze the existing self-regulated writing strategies of Junior High School students belonging to different class programs. After carefully analyzing the findings, the following conclusion is made:

There are eleven existing strategies in the writing processes of the participants. These are environmental structuring, using books/internet sources, goal setting, finding intrinsic value, cognitive strategies, positive self-talk, self-reaction, rest and return strategy, self-verbalization, tutor/peer review, and rewards. All these strategies are used by the participants in both groups. Some of these strategies occur only in one stage of the writing process. The others can occur in two stages of writing. These strategies can also be categorized as environmental, covert/personal, or behavioral strategies. Additionally, these participants derive benefits in using these strategies. The benefits are enhancement in focus, reduction of affective burdens, increase in motivation, insurance of good writing quality and acquisition of helpful feedback. Furthermore, there are strategies that are unused or unknown to the participants such as self-monitoring, time planning, and using outlines or graphic organizers.

Based on the findings and conclusion, the researcher recommends the following:

1. Language teachers of the institution where the study is conducted should adopt teaching approaches and methods that integrate Self-Regulation Strategies in writing. While it’s true that students from both programs already make use of SRL strategies, there are still strategies that can be taught. Furthermore, the students’ existing strategies can be enhanced when explicitly taught by teachers. Because its efficiency has been tested in various research, it is best to choose the SRSD (Self-Regulated Strategy Development) approach for teaching writing.
2. Another is that the participants of this study and students of writing in general must have an increased awareness of Self-Regulation strategies as it is proven to have a strong positive impact in overcoming the challenges posed by writing and reducing the cognitive burden that comes in doing it.
3. Also, the school administrators must recognize the role that Self-Regulation plays in not only reducing the difficulty experienced by learners in writing tasks but also in enhancing their written outputs as well; and consequently, create opportunities for teachers to participate in trainings on teaching their students not only to be Self-Regulated writers but Self-Regulated Learners in general.
4. Lastly, other or future researchers must conduct studies with emphasis on the following: establishing conclusive causative relationships between the students’ Self-Regulation strategies in writing and their writing competence; investigation on the most effective and least effective Self-Regulation Strategies that students in the institution use; exploration of unknown or novel Self-Regulation strategies used by students in the institution; and other worthwhile investigations on the use of Self-Regulation by the students in the institution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Writing this research has not been easy. It was journey driven by passion and ornamented by challenges. The completion of this research is not only due to my determination, but also to several people who have been with me throughout the study. Thus, with much joy, I express gratitude to the following:

To my family whose members have been sources of inspiration and have provided great love and support especially during the times when I found it most difficult to continue. I am especially grateful and greatly indebt to my wife, Angeline Bon Cordial for her patience and invaluable sacrifices to provide ways in order for me to work on this study.

I am very grateful to Sorsogon State University, its management, faculty, and staff. I am particularly thankful to its president, Dr. Geraldine F. De Jesus for her excellent management of the University. Its graduate program allowed not only me, but many graduate students a venue and opportunity to continuously enhance ourselves professionally by providing high quality educational services while at the same time, being compassionate to us and considerate to our needs. Truly, Sorsogon State University is a pamantasang may puso.

To Dr. Susan S. Janer, the dean of the University’s graduate school, I am much indebt. Her kindness, consideration, guidance and vigor in pushing us, SSU’s graduate students to finish our degrees are qualities that make her a very admirable leader.

To my thesis adviser and co-author, Dr. Ana Cristina G. Fortes, for her invaluable guidance and support. Her expertise and insights from the very beginning of this study have been the primary guiding light for every decision that I had to make. I would also like to express my gratitude to the panelists of this study: Dr. Ritzelda Deri, Dr. Sherill Gilbas, Dr. Susan Astillero who, through their expertise, have contributed greatly in the success of this study.

To my school, to my colleagues and superiors who have been a great help not only in the gathering of data for this study but in their assistance in processing it as well. I am fortunate to be a part of an institution that is supportive of pursuits such as this.

Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to the students of Bulan National High School who have not only willingly, but enthusiastically, participated in this study. The study would not have been possible without these students’ participation.

I am in great debt to these individuals and institutions. Without them, this study would not have been possible.

REFERENCES

1. Balsamo A. M. (2019). Effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing performance and sense of self-efficacy of postsecondary English language learners. University of Toronto
2. Baraceros E. (2016). Practical research 2. Rex Book Store Inc.
3. Bos J. (2020). Research ethics for students in social sciences. Springer.
4. Camacho A., Alves R. A., Silva M., Feriera P. (2023). The impact of combining SRSD instructionwith a brief growth mindset intervention on sixth graders’ writing motivation and performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology 72(2):102-127 DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102127
5. Chen X., Wang C., & Kim D. (2019). Self-regulated learning strategy profiles among English as a foreign language learners. TESOL quarterly. doi: 10.1002/tesq.540
6. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
7. De La Paz S., & Graham S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology 94(4), 687-698. DOI: 10.1037//0022-0663.94.4.687
8. Dunn, M. The Challenges of Struggling Writers: Strategies That Can Help. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci 11120795
9. Duyaguit C. L. (2023). Self-regulated strategy development: A technique in improving the English writing performance of senior high school online learners in Bulihan Integrated National High School. International Journal of Research Studies in Education 12(2), 91-98. DOI: 10.5861 /ijrse.2023.27
10. Espiritu, F. (2012). Teaching narrative writing through the SRSD model to Filipino students with ADHD: A case study. https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/4276
11. Garcia R. G., & Assuncion Z. (2022). Remediating the writing performance of struggling writers through a self-regulated strategy development approach. Southeast Asia Language Teaching and Learning (SALTeL) Journal 5(1), 23-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35307/saltel.v5i1.80
12. Graham S., Harris K., Kiuhara S.,McKeown D. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology 104(4), 879-896. DOI: 10.1037/a0029185
13. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3–12.
14. Juin, J. K., Swanto, S., & Din, W. A. (2021). The Development of an SRSD-Based ESL Writing Instruction Module for Malaysian Secondary School Students. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(5), 453–467. DOI:10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i5/9216
15. Malpique A., Margarida A., Simao V., Frison L. M. (2017). Self-regulated strategies for school writing tasks: A cross-cultural report. Psychology of Language and Communication 21(1), 244-265. DOI: 10.1515/plc-2017-0012
16. Mazeh N. & Nehme Z. (2020). The effect of self-regulated strategy development on persuasivewriting: A quasi-experimental study among grade 6 students in lebanese private schools Journal of Education and Practice 11, 17-31.
17. Remler D., & Van Ryzin G. (2015). Research methods in practice : strategies for description and causation. Baruch College, City University of New York, Gregg G. Van Ryzin, Rutgers University, Newark.
18. Russel K (2012). Write now. McGraw-Hill, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York
19. Sedita J. (2019). The strands that are woven into skilled writing.https://keystoliteracy.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/02/The-Strands-That-Are-Woven-Into-SkilledWritingV2.pdf
20. TEAL. (2011). Self-Regulated Strategy Development. U.S. Department of Education, Office of vocational and Adult Education (OVAE).
21. UNICEF & SEAMO. (2019). SEA-PLM 2019 national report of the Philippines. Philippines: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF & Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) – SEA-PLM Secretariat.
22. Vaddapalli M. K. & Woerner H. (2012). Efficacy of self-regulated strategy instruction in planing and organization of opinion essays of esl/efl writers at tertiary level. i-manager’s Journal on English language teaching 2, 25-31.
23. Zimmerman B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice 41(2), 64-70. DOI:10.1207/s1543042Itip4102_2
24. Zimmerm 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.660
25. Zimmeran, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulated learning: Where motivation and metacognition intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. New York: Routledge.
26. Zimmerman B., & Risemberg R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 22, 73–101