In order to gain deeper insights into the ESL learners’ perceived self-
regulatory efficacy as writers, it was necessary to look at their self-efficacy
in employing SRL strategies in writing. The 36 items in the
Undergraduates’ Perceived Self-Regulatory Efficacy for Writing
(UPSREW) Scale were coded using the SRL strategies framework
developed by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986). For this study, the
15 categories identified by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons were
regrouped into 10 categories following an SRL scale developed by
Zhaomin (2009) where some were viewed as describing a related strategy,
for instance reviewing tests, notes and textbooks. The three were
reclassified as a single category for this study. A similar move was made
for ‘seeking social assistance’ that included peers, teachers and adults. The
‘rehearsing and memorizing’ category was omitted from this study on
academic writing as Lee’s (2002) study on strategy and self-regulation
intruction in ESL writing which employed a somewhat similar
questionnaire to assess self-regulation proved this category to be
unutilised. The data gathered were then analysed using the paired sample
Table 4.5 ESL students’ performance in the self-efficacy scale at pretest and posttest according to the self-regulated learning categories
Note: *Significant at p< 0.05
As the subjects in this current study were low-proficiency learners of ESL,
their confidence in applying the SRL strategies subsequent to the SRSD
instruction was significant for only some of the SRL strategies listed in the
UPSREW scale as shown by the t-test results in Table 4.5. Although they
had been subjected to SRSD intervention, their ability to self-regulate
might have been influenced by their low self-efficacy that could be
attributed to their low proficiency in English, task, interest and other socio-
cultural factors (Wang & Pape, 2004).
Self-regulated Time Mean SD t-value p-value Mean SD t-value p-value learning strategies
Goal setting Posttest 5.076 1.803 0.796 6.106 1.823 0.089 Pretest 5.167 1.445 5.470 1.397
Self -Evaluation Posttest 5.649 1.700 0.105 6.390 1.453 0.000* Pretest 5.216 1.291 5.325 1.340
Organising and Posttest 5.714 1.503 0.003* 6.290 1.502 0.000* Transforming Pretest 4.970 0.980 5.301 1.041
Seeking Information Posttest 6.848 1.955 0.486 6.576 1.733 0.850 Pretest 6.545 1.954 6.485 2.210
Keeping Records and Posttest 5.586 1.404 0.014* 6.131 1.532 0.002* Monitoring Pretest 4.970 1.132 5.222 1.183
Environmental Posttest 5.333 1.987 0.419 6.227 1.838 0.552 Structuring Pretest 5.091 1.898 6.000 1.299
Self -Consequences Posttest 5.424 1.937 0.843 6.455 1.938 0.022* Pretest 5.515 1.716 5.485 1.482
Seeking Social Posttest 6.182 1.565 0.043* 6.348 1.613 0.111 Assistance Pretest 5.515 1.608 5.788 1.516
Reviewing Records Posttest 5.061 1.321 0.008* 6.152 1.839 0.000* Pretest 4.212 1.364 4.667 1.493 Other Posttest 5.121 1.833 0.184 6.212 1.850 0.000* Pretest 4.606 1.435 4.788 1.166 0.705 0.191 3.459 0.601 2.614 0.819 2.811 3.937 1.357 3.968 0.200 2.410 2.106 1.637 1.670 3.903 3.231 4.085
Treatment Group (N =33) Control Group ( N =33)
On comparing the two groups, it was found that the treatment group’s pre
mean scores for the perceived self-regulatory efficacy for writing were
generally lower than the pre mean scores of the control group except for
two SRL categories, that is ‘seeking information’ and ‘self-consequences’
while the post mean scores were also lower than those of the control group
except for one category, that is ‘seeking information’. Following the SRSD
writing instruction, however, it was found that the treatment group’s post
mean scores for self-efficacy were higher than its pre mean scores for all
SRL strategies except for ‘goal setting’ and ‘self-consequences’ while the
post mean scores of the control group showed improvement for all SRL
strategies. Looking at the mean scores of both the groups, it was found that
they ranged from 4.212 to 6.545 for the pretest and from 5.061 to 6.848 for
the posttest, which would be considered to be within the medium range in
the UPSREW scale of 0 to 10. This indicated that generally, there was
improvement in self-efficacy, but it was only slight as the self-efficacy
remained in the medium range.
Also, the findings revealed that the treatment group was capable of
utilising SRL strategies that involved all three triadic processes of self-
regulation, namely environmental, behavioural and covert or personal
(Bandura, 1986; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997) following the SRSD
instruction with significant difference in the use of certain SRL strategies,
namely ‘organising and transforming’, ‘keeping records and monitoring’,
‘seeking social assistance’ and ‘reviewing records’ which in turn resulted
in significant improvement in academic writing as noted in all four IELTS
resources and grammatical range and accuracy. To put it simply, there
was improvement in planning or generation of ideas, organisation,
vocabulary and the mechanics of writing. This could only be attributed to
the SRSD instruction, as the control group did not perform as well despite
their reported improvement in their self-efficacy. An earlier study that
corroborates with this contention is Lee’s (2002) study that related
instruction on strategy and self-regulation with improvement in ESL
students’ planning and revision strategies.
While it may appear from Table 4.5 that only 4 SRL strategies, namely
‘organising and transforming’, ‘keeping records and monitoring’, ‘seeking
social assistance’ and ‘reviewing records’ were employed by the treatment
group students in the present study, self-reflection records and interviews
with students revealed that they did employ other SRL strategies such as
‘goal setting’, ‘environmental structuring’ and ‘seeking information’ as
and when the need arose. An example of this utilisation of a wider range of
SRL strategies is evident in the following actions taken by Sham, a student
in the treatment group. He stated that he had set goals to improve his
comprehension and the content on the body paragraphs and ‘... to train
myself to find other sources towards this essay and try to practise doing
the essay.’ In order to achieve his goals, he took the steps to read more
articles and newspaper and tried to collect points that were relevant to the
topic as well as ‘do some brainstorming for the article... start to plan and
ready points before writing my essay’. By doing so, he managed ‘do the
essay arrangely and not keep repeating points... my strategy is not to think
get marks and avoid errors.’ His regulation of his writing, however,
depended on ‘the time that is given to do the articles or essays. ‘First, I
would like to achieve is to try to correct some corrections. Then I try to
refer again and search for mistakes again... I have to push myself to do the
work and try to find a way to be focus and be discipline. Sometimes, I
approach my friends and Internet for help or assistance to achieve my goal.
I usually try to finish my writing assignment and other homework in
between classes because my flat is quite noisy and not conducive for
learning’. This showed that besides applying the SRL strategies of goal
setting and planning, seeking information and, organising and
transforming, as well as self-evaluation and monitoring, he also sought
social assistance, employed self-consequencing to overcome obstacles and
attempted environmental structuring.
Although some of the SRL strategies may not have been effectively
employed, it would be fallacious to assume that these SRL strategies were
not utilised at all in a given writing task by students.
4.2.2.1 Goal Setting
In the present study, the control group reported a higher level of self-
efficacy and exhibited some characteristics of high achievers in their
confidence to employ some of the SRL strategies in their writing. This
included goal setting which interviews with students indicated to be an
unexplored area for most of them. The students indicated that goal setting
was ‘something new’ to them. Also, the study indicated that students
achievable if they felt the need to set goals. This finding supports Ponton,
Derrick, Hall, Rhea, and Carr’s (2005) study which revealed that self-
efficacy has a mediating effect on motivation. This helps explain why
students may not engage in a task perceived as futile but would instead
attempt tasks deemed efficacious. This was evident in the comments of the
following students who had problems in achieving their goals for writing:
Fazli:
I have a thought in my mind that saying English is quite difficult especially in academic writing. I don’t put enough effort to achieve that goals.
Irwan:
I don't have any specific goals [for writing] but I just want to get a good result… I try setting goals for the writing assignment on the impact on mobile phones as you asked to do… I set goals for certain courses, for [example] the offset photography course. My goal is to get them in...Because that’s the main subject and we…already done it before...I think I can [do] better… setting goals is new and I not confident [to achieve them]. I set goals for courses I like coz there are certain courses I dislike...not dislike, I learn...I cannot complete. It’s really tough for me. I don’t set goals for courses [that are] really hard. I… not set any goals for the final exam… I do some planning for the essay.
It should be noted that the post mean score of 6.106 for the control group
was higher than the post mean score of 5.076 for the treatment group. This
was despite the fact that students in the control group were not exposed to
SRL strategy unlike students in the treatment group. A possible reason for
this could be that learners tend to overestimate the quality of what they
have learnt, as they are not aware of the extent of their learning
deficiencies if their cognitive model does not include instruction on self-
regulation (White and Baird, 1991, cited in Lee, 2002). Another likely