The Influence of Effort Regulation and Affective Strategies on the Writing Process: A PLS-SEM Analysis

Writing is a fundamental academic skill that requires learners to manage cognitive, motivational, and behavioural demands throughout the writing process. This study investigates the influence of effort regulation and affective strategies on the writing process, specifically during the planning, translating, and reviewing stages. This study is grounded in the Cognitive Process Theory of Writing, Self-Regulated Learning theory, and Expectancy-Value Theory. A quantitative research design was employed, and data were collected from university students using a questionnaire adapted from Raoofi et al. (2017), which measured metacognitive, cognitive, effort regulation, and affective writing strategies using a five-point Likert scale. The data were analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) through SmartPLS 4 to evaluate both the measurement and structural models. The findings revealed that effort regulation has significant relationships with all three stages of the writing process: planning, translating, and reviewing, indicating that students who sustain effort and persist in writing tasks are more engaged in managing the different stages of writing. In contrast, affective strategies showed a significant relationship only with the translating stage, suggesting that emotional control and motivation mainly influence the drafting process. Effect size analysis further indicated medium effects for effort regulation on planning and reviewing, and for affective strategies on translating, while effort regulation had a smaller effect on translating.
Overall, the findings highlight the importance of persistence, motivation, and emotional regulation in supporting students’ writing development. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of how effort regulation and affective strategies shape the writing process and suggests that writing instruction should incorporate strategy-based approaches that promote both self-regulation and positive emotional engagement to enhance students’ writing performance.

Effort Regulation, Affective Strategies, Writing Process, Self-Regulated Learning, PLS-SEM

1. Bartholomay, E. M., & Houlihan, D. D. (2016). Public Speaking Anxiety Scale: Preliminary [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. psychometric data and scale validation. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 211–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Fornell, C. and Bookstein. F.L. (1982) Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440-452. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3151718 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Baharudin, F., Hani, N., Ramli, L., Hani, A., Habali, M., & Safian, S. A. (2024). Exploring the Relationship of Writing Strategies in Academic Writing. In ESTEEM Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (Vol. 8). https://ejssh.uitm.edu.my [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed). Hillsdale, NJ. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dari, R. W., Rahmawati, E., & Akhiriyah, S. (2022). AN ANALYSIS OF WRITING STRATEGIES USED BY STUDENTS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT. JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 10(3), 414. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v%vi%i.5413 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. . College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Fornell, C. , & L. D. F. (1981). (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: ALgebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Goodman, S. N. (1999). Toward Evidence-Based Medical Statistics. 2: The Bayes factor. Academia and Clinic, 130(12). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hair, J. F. , Mathews, L. , M., Mathews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet" . Journal of Mrketing Theory and Practices, 19(2), 139–152. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Nurfiza Abdul Alahdad, S., Yunus, N., Rasyiqah Sazali, A., Saleha Sanusi, S., Khamaruruddin, F., Mardhiah Zaharuddin, A., Hanim Rahmat Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, N., Teknologi MARA, U., & Alam, S. (2025). Exploring the Relationship of All Strategies in Writing. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Ramayah, T. , Cheak, F., Ting, H., & memon, M. A. (2018). Partial least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) using Smart PLS 3.0: An Updated Guide and practical guide to statistical analysis (2nd ed). . Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Raoofi, S., Miri, A., Gharibi, J., & Malaki, B. (2017). Assessing and Validtaing a Writing Strategy Scale for Undergraduate Students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(3), 624–633. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Ringle, C. M. , S. M. (2016). Gain more insights from your PLS-SEM results: The Importance-performance map analysis. . Industrial Management & Data System, 116(9), 1865–1886. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results:The importance-performance map analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(9), 1865–1886. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Skar, G. B., Graham, S., & Huebner, A. R. (2023). Efficacy for writing self-regulation, attitude toward writing, and quality of second grade students’ writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1265785 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Teng, M. F., Wang, C., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Assessing self-regulatory writing strategies and their predictive effects on young EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessing Writing, 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100573 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Wigfield & Eccles. (2000). Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement Motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Ziegenfuss, J. Y. , C. A. E. , J. M. D. M. M. J. T. E. K. , M. C. (2021). Impact of Demographic Surevy Questions on Response Rate and Measurement: A Randomized Experiment:A Randomized Experiment. Survey Practice, 14(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Zimmerman, B. J. (2020). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Acheivement. Educational Psychological Review, 32, 321–335. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study