Several studies (Emig, 1971, cited in Kamimura, 2000, Flower & Hayes, 1980)
have indicated that writing instruction that employs a process approach is an
effective method of teaching writing. As the writing instruction for the EAP
course in this study already takes a process writing approach as recommended by
the course developer at the university, the SRSD model was integrated into the
existing writing instruction.
By employing this SRSD model, the whole writing process was broken down into
modelling the strategies and students imitating the strategies. Ideally, the writing
instruction gradually moves away from being more teacher-directed to being peer-
supported. Then, with peer-support, the instruction progresses with more
opportunities for students to practise their strategies until finally, they are more
self-directed and more self-regulated in their writing.
The aim of this study was to determine if SRSD strategy instruction training could
help students become more autonomous in their academic writing by enhancing
the students’ learning strategies, their self-efficacy and writing skills.
Throughout the writing instruction course, the students in the treatment were
taught based on the SRSD model developed by Harris and Graham (1996; 1999).
Besides that, the students were also taught to set goals as well as analyse their
achievement of these goals based on Alderman (1999). This motivated them to
employ the self-regulated strategies as they evaluated their goal achievement. The
model with this goal setting component was necessary to train them to regulate
their learning. The six stages of SRSD are as follows:
Stage One
Stage one focused on establishing background information where the instructor
assessed the students' prior knowledge of the task that is the writing genre and its
parts. It was also important that the instructor ensured that the student knew the
purpose for writing, which is to communicate his ideas in some form of genre,
whether it is a story or a narrative, or to convey information, or to persuade or
express an opinion. The student was also reminded to consider the audience or the
gauge students' knowledge about genre-specific essay components such as a thesis
statement in a persuasive essay. Students were then asked to identify these
components on a printed essay.
Stage Two
Stage two involved discussing the strategy. Here, the student was also encouraged
to assess his needs and to set goals for writing (Appendices G1 & G2). Prior to
initiating a strategy, the instructor and students discussed the characteristics of
good writers and their approach to writing an essay. The strategy then served as a
‘trick’ for improving writing. According to the SRSD model, instructors usually
introduce resources such as mnemonic charts and graphic organizers to facilitate
learning as they describe the strategy. As the subjects of this study were ‘normally
achieving’ tertiary level ESL students, meaning they were without any disabilities,
this use of mnemonics was minimised although some mnemonics such POWeR
referring to the stages in the writing process, that is Prewriting, Organising,
Writing a rough draft, evaluating and Revising and Rewriting, or TREE referring
to Topic, 3 Reasons for one’s view, E for examples or elaborations and finally E
for ending had been used from time to time to promote memory. This, however,
was necessary with the weaker students who had poor retention problem.
Generally, the instructor used a sample essay to facilitate discussion about how to
improve an essay by examining its parts. Students were also introduced to the
notion of setting goals and the need for this was highlighted to them. A mini
lecture about goal setting was given, and this was followed by a discussion to
create awareness of the importance of setting goals. In the case of EAP, students
at this stage were also introduced to the idea of brain-storming and planning, as
Stage Three
Stage three involved modelling, which is fundamental to the teaching of most
strategies, especially from the social cognitive perspective (Bandura, 1989). This
technique is important when it comes to teaching writing. During the strategy
instruction, the instructor modelled a writer's cognitions ("think aloud") to show
how and when to use the strategy. In the case of young learners, reference could
be made to supporting materials such as charts and organizers while modelling.
This instruction phase was crucial as it enabled the instructor to illustrate the
process of planning and writing a well-organized essay. Students were taught
through the stages of the writing process to complete each essay assignment and
within each stage of the process, writing strategies were introduced and practised.
The approach for this study involved a five-stage process as indicated in the
prescribed EAP textbook for the diploma students at this university
(Michael et al., 2010). The book also provided peer and self-evaluation checklists
as a form of support for students to gauge their work at various stages of the
writing process, namely preparing the outline, writing the draft as well as the final
draft. Emphasis was given to giving feedback as well as setting and reassessing
one’s goals repeatedly throughout the writing instruction in the SRSD model to
underscore the fact that self-reflection is a critical component of self-regulation.
The third stage of the SRSD model also emphasized the use of self-statements
known as self-instructions and self-reinforcements. In this SRSD model, students
were encouraged to develop and record some personal self-statements that are also
known as self-instructions as they imitated the instructor during this modelling
stage. In fact, they were encouraged to use these developed personal self-
When working on an essay, they could say ‘Now I shall apply the strategy,’ or ‘I
know I can do this,’ and when checking their work, ‘Let’s check carefully,’ or
‘Wow, that’s great’. If negative self-statements such as ‘This is really difficult,’ or
‘I don’t know what to write’ occurred, they were to be addressed immediately. In
this study, however, it was difficult to get students to self-talk as they felt shy and
embarrassed doing this overtly.
Self-reinforcement was another type of self-statement encouraged in the SRSD
instruction to let the learners know when they are doing well. Self-instructions
were used to self-reinforce a job well-done or a well-written essay. Students were
taught to use their self-assessments as an opportunity to praise themselves for
completing the steps in the strategy or a task correctly, or when they had done a
good job of setting a goal, monitoring their progress, and guiding themselves
through it.
Stage Four
Stage four involved memorization and evaluating outcomes as well as strategic
planning. Students should be allowed sufficient time to memorize the strategy
until they are fluent in understanding mnemonics, their meanings, and each
strategy step. In this study, however, not much use was made of mnemonics
although students had been introduced to POWeR, which refers to the writing
process, and TREE, which is used for expository writing.
Stage Five
Stage five involved guided practice. The instructor offers scaffolding or support as
collaboration between the instructor and students as they proceed to write essays.
The students provide ideas, while the teacher writes notes and the essay. In this
present study, the students tended to also participate in writing the essays
collaboratively with the instructor. This was then followed by peer work where
they wrote essays collaboratively, starting with groups of 6 or more students, and
then ending with smaller groups of 4 or 2. Support materials such as checklists for
revising, editing and proofreading, and guides for peer and self-evaluations were
used and students were encouraged to give feedback as well as set goals and re-
evaluate them as they worked in groups. The instructor should ensure that guided
practice was given to writing essays at various stages of the writing process.
Stage Six
Stage six, which was the final stage involved independent performance. At this
stage students should be able to apply appropriate strategies without any support.
Support materials, for example, are gradually replaced with student-developed
products such as students creating their own graphic organizer on paper. It is
necessary that students be given an opportunity to practise writing essays in varied
settings or genres so as to promote generalization of strategies learnt.
3.7 Procedure
This study employed a pre-treatment/post-treatment quasi-experimental design
with a control group. Among the variations in the design, a quasi-experimental
design may be characterised as having pre and post-treatment of control and
experimental groups where the subjects assigned to these groups were not
randomly selected (Seliger & Shohamy, 1995). This design is suited for the study
study in a classroom without causing any further disruption then it would have
been possible in a true-experimental design. As a quasi-experimental study is
conducted in conditions that resemble the real world (Seliger & Shohamy, 1995),
it provides greater external validity and allows the researcher to obtain the best
evidence to gauge whether a particular intervention had the intended causal effect.
The experimental or treatment group in this study comprised two intact classes of
semester three diploma students from the faculties of Art and Design, and Music
at UiTM. Treatment here refers to anything done to a group or groups under
controlled circumstances with a purpose of measuring of its effect (Seliger &
Shohamy, 1995).
In this study, the treatment involved a writing strategy instruction which adopted
the SRSD model to train 33 students in academic writing in a course that already
employs a process writing approach. All the students in the treatment group were
taught by one instructor, in this case the researcher over a period of 12 weeks.
Approximately, four hours per week in two 2-hour sessions were allocated for this
strategy writing instruction from end of July 2010 to mid October 2010.
The control group was selected from two intact classes of semester three diploma
students from the same faculties that is Art and Design, and Music at UiTM.
These students were also taught academic writing using the process writing
approach by two writing instructors from the same university as the researcher
over the same period of time. Weeks 13 and 14 were normally used for revising
To ensure that the groups were comparable, all the participating groups used the
same textbook that adopted a process oriented approach to writing, and followed a
weekly schedule that was designed based on the recommended textbook. As such,
both the treatment and the control groups covered similar topics in relation to the
writing component and both had access to all the checklists for revising, as well as
editing and proofreading, and peer and self-evaluation guides that were available
in the book. These checklists and evaluation guides served as props to promote
self-regulation in the treatment group. The students were taught and encouraged to
use them. However, in the control group, it was left to the students to decide
whether they wanted to use these props. Also, the on-going assessments and the
deadlines for the writing assignment such as the evaluation of outline, first draft
and final draft for the term paper that involved pair work were closely observed
by all the instructors.
The only difference between the two groups was that the SRSD model was
incorporated into the writing strategies instruction of the treatment group while
the instructors in the control group taught the students the strategies for selecting
an appropriate research topic, planning the first draft, searching for sources of
information, revising and editing this draft through mini-lessons that did not
involve modelling, self-instruction and goal setting. The instructors briefly
described the strategies and asked the students to practise applying them in the
subsequent exercises provided in the recommended textbook. They also
conferenced with students about their writing projects; however, there was
Although different instructors were involved in this study with the researcher
teaching the treatment group and two other instructors teaching the two control
groups, measuring teacher-specific effects was beyond the scope of the current
study. The possibility of teacher effects seemed minimal as all were experienced
in teaching EAP at UiTM and had been involved with the BEL311 right from its
conception.
The independent variables examined in this study include the treatment and the
control groups, and the students’ low proficiency. The dependent variables are the
writing skills as assessed in the students’ writing, students’ self-efficacy for
writing and the students’ use of learning strategies. It must be noted here that all
the names of students presented in the results and discussion section of this study
are pseudonyms so as to ensure the confidentiality of the students’ personal
identity. This was necessary to minimise response bias and social evaluative
concerns (Bandura, 2006). Reassuring students’ of the confidentiality of their
responses and feedback encouraged greater participation from students. An
overview of the research questions in this study, the measures used to assess the
Table 3.2 Data analysis framework indicating research questions, data sources and analysis procedures
Research Questions Data Sources Analysis procedures 1. What are the differences in
the writing skills of low- proficiency Malay ESL learners who have completed a writing course based on the SRSD model in comparison to the control group?
Pre and Post instruction assignments administered to both control and treatment groups
Paired sample t-tests on overall writing score and the 4 components of the IELTS scale Semi-structured Interview 1 –
during the setting of goals (Distal & proximal goals) and identifying writing problems
Semi-structured Interview 2 – on changes in writing, self-efficacy, learning strategies & achievements of goals, as well as generalisation and maintenance of strategies after the treatment
Goal setting sheets
Students’ transcribed interviews and self-reflections are analysed and coded using Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons’ (1986) interview schedule for self-regulated learning. The findings are used to triangulate and validate the results of the quantitative data. Statements pertaining to self- monitoring, self-evaluation, self- efficacy are also traced. Self-reflections
2. How does a writing course based on the SRSD model affect the perceived self-efficacy of low- proficiency Malay ESL learners in their ability to develop and self- regulate their learning strategies in comparison to the control group?
Pre and Post instruction administration of the
Undergraduates’ Perceived Self- Regulatory Efficacy for Writing (UPSREW) Scale
Paired sample t-tests on the overall self-efficacy score and the 10 categories of self- regulated learning strategies based on Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons’ (1986) interview schedule for self-regulated learning.
3. How does a writing course based on the SRSD model affect the learner strategies employed by low-proficiency Malay ESL learners in their ability to develop and self-regulate their writing in comparison to the control group?
Pre and Post instruction administration of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)
Paired sample t-tests on the overall SILL scores and the 6 categories of the language learning strategies
4. What are the distinctive features of an SRSD model for teaching academic writing to low-proficiency Malay
ESL learners?
To address the research questions in Table 3.2, the data collection procedure was
divided into three phases as reflected in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Research procedure