The employment of self-regulated strategies in writing process by English-major freshmen at Ho Chi Minh city open University

 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 4 (16) 2015 – December/2015 91 
THE EMPLOYMENT OF SELF-REGULATED STRATEGIES IN 
WRITING PROCESS BY ENGLISH-MAJOR FRESHMEN AT 
HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY 
Pham Vu Phi Ho
1
, Nguyen Thi Kim Thanh
2
1,2
Ho Chi Minh City Open University 
Email: ho.pham@ou.edu.vn 
(Received: 06/10/2015; Revised: 05/12/2015; Accepted: 07/12/2015) 
ABSTRACT 
The current study aims to investigate the employment of self-regulated strategies (SRS) and 
the gender differences in using SRS in learners’ writing processes. Zimmerman’s model of self-
regulated learning and thirty SRS are used. This is the survey study and its research instruments 
are the questionnaire and the interview. The participants of the study are ninety-three first-year 
students who major in English language of Faculty of Foreign Languages at HCMC Open 
University. This study finds that learners used twenty-seven SRS in their writing processes 
including fifteen sub-strategies of self-efficacy strategies and twelve other SRS such as 
organizing and transforming strategies, goal setting and planning strategies, seeking 
information strategies, environmental structuring strategies, time management strategies, 
imagery strategies, self-instruction strategies, self-consequence strategies, keeping records and 
monitoring strategies, seeking for social assistance strategies from friends, seeking for social 
assistance strategies from teachers, and self-evaluation strategies. Also, the study finds the 
gender differences in using five SRS including self-efficacy strategy to write the introduction 
paragraph, organizing and transforming strategies, seeking information strategies, self-efficacy 
strategy to refocus on writing when the distractions are occurred, and keeping record and 
monitoring strategies for note taking. 
Keywords: self-regulated strategies, writing process. 
1. Introduction 
Writing is considered as the sophisticated 
and complex process in academic context 
(Hammann, 2005, p.15; Limpo and Alves, 
2013, p.401) while it plays a significant role 
in all learning tasks (Zimmerman and 
Bandura, 1994, p.846). Writing tasks are 
related to the critical intellectual (Bruning and 
Horn, 2000, p. 30). Academic writing towards 
educational goals involves in not only the task 
assessments but also the development of 
critical thinking and cognitive support. 
A writing task always requires learners to 
possess not only content knowledge about 
ideas, lexicon, and grammatical structures and 
rhetorical knowledge such as writing genres, 
planning, and idea expressions but also 
individual regulation because writing is 
considered as the self-process (Zimmerman 
and Risemberg, 1997, p.73). Apart from these 
difficulties, there are the challenges from 
learners’ behaviors that affect the writing 
success inside and outside the classroom 
contexts (Lane et al., 2011, p.322). It is 
92 The employment of self-regulated strategies in writing process by english... 
supposed that learners’ writing processes can 
be enhanced when they effectively carry out 
the tasks by using the effective strategies. 
Using SRS is a suggestion since self-regulated 
strategies (SRS) can make learners pay more 
attention to their own cognitive processes and 
they are able to face with the problems for 
writing achievement. 
Over the years, various studies have 
investigated the role of SRS in writing 
performance (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987; 
cited in Zimmerman and Risemberg, 1997, 
p.74). The term of SRS is regarded as the 
actions and processes for learners as agent of 
their own learning to acquire knowledge 
purposefully and consciously (Zimmerman, 
1989, p.329). The cognitive processes of SRS 
contribute the supportive role to the writing 
performance (Pajares, 2003, p.141). In 
writing, using SRS is the process that enables 
learners to transfer their cognition to their 
performance (Zimmerman, 2008, p.166). It 
arises from a purpose of learning so that 
learners feel being motivated for their own 
learning. Learners become self-regulated 
learners or expert learners who successfully 
perform the academic tasks with confidence, 
diligence, and resourcefulness (Peggy and 
Timothy, 1996, p.1). 
The current study has two aims for the 
issues of SRS in writing. Firstly, the study 
analyzes how learners apply SRS in different 
phases of their writing processes. The issue is 
exposed when learners express their opinions 
about the procedure through which they 
perform a writing task by using specific 
strategies for various writing actions in 
different writing contexts. Secondly, the study 
investigates the gender differences in using 
SRS to perform the writing tasks basing on 
the differences in selecting SRS by male and 
female students. To clarify the purposes of the 
current study, two research questions are 
presented as follows: 
1. To what extent do learners employ 
self-regulated strategies (SRS) in writing 
process? 
2. Are there any gender differences in 
using self-regulated strategies (SRS) in 
writing process? 
2. Literature review 
Zimmerman’s model 
When scholars around the world discuss 
strategies employed by the students in the 
writing process, the model of SRL will be 
mentioned. Among various models of SRS, 
Zimmerman’s model is paid attention in the 
current study. Figure 1 describes 
Zimmerman’s model of SRL where SRS are 
employed in learning processes. The initiative 
of the cyclical loop in the model is 
forethought phase which contains two main 
strategy-actions including task analysis and 
self-motivational beliefs (Zimmerman, 2008). 
When learners approach to a specific task, 
they analyze the requirements of the task and 
evaluate the task value to motivate themselves 
in task performance (Panadero and Alonso-
Tapia, 2014, p.453). The cyclical loop of SRL 
continuously occurs in performance phase 
which engages learners in self-control and 
self-observation processes. Learners sketch 
the plans, give the priorities, and select the 
strategies towards the tasks (Timothy and 
Zimmerman, 2004, p.538). They also 
critically pursue the task processes and make 
the opportune adjustments to attain the setting 
goals. Self-reflection phase is the process of 
reflection about the learning outcomes and 
accumulation of experiences to improve the 
subsequent tasks with self-judgments and self-
reactions processes (Panadero and Alonso-
Tapia, 2014, p.456). In this phase, learners 
self-judge their learning outcomes and their 
experienced emotions to make the adaptive 
decisions for the learning approaches and 
learning strategies (Timothy and Zimmerman, 
2004, p.539). 
 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 4 (16) 2015 – December/2015 93 
Figure 1. Zimmerman’s model of SRL (cited in Zimmerman, 2008, p.178) 
Regarding the issues of using SRS in 
writing performance, Castelló, Inesta, and 
Monereo (2009) highly appreciated the 
employment of SRS in writing process since it 
helped graduate learners to be independent 
thinkers and writers with their own identity 
and be able to overcome the arising problems 
during task performance. Zimmerman and 
Martinez-Pons (1986) exposed that tenth-
grade learners differently used SRS, 
especially seeking information, keeping 
records and monitoring, organizing and 
transforming, and self-efficacy strategies. 
Zimmerman and Bandura (1994) particularly 
focused on the manipulation of self-efficacy 
strategies in freshmen’ writing processes. The 
study found that the freshmen could control 
and evaluate their writing outcomes by using 
these significant strategies. Additionally, the 
strategies helped them to overcome the 
difficulties in their writing processes. Kaplan, 
Lichtinger, and Gorodetsky (2009) focused on 
the role of goal orientations for secondary 
learners to evaluate their writing outcomes 
with the setting goals. 
In terms of gender differences in using 
SRS in writing process, Pajares, Britner, and 
Valiante (2000) pointed out the gender 
differences in the application of setting goals 
and self-belief strategies in writing 
performance by secondary students. In the 
study by Pajares and Valiante (2001), the use 
of motivational belief strategies for writing 
achievement by secondary male students was 
different from that of female students. 
Additionally, Williams and Takaku (2011) 
figured out the gender differences by 
undergraduate students in terms of using self-
efficacy and help seeking strategies in writing 
performance. Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons 
(1990) assumed the gender differences in 
using self-efficacy strategies during 
elementary and secondary learners’ writing 
processes. Pajares and Valiante (1996) also 
found the gender differences in using self-
efficacy strategies among elementary 
students. 
3. Methodology 
3.1. Participants 
The current study was conducted under 
the permission of the Dean of Faculty of 
Foreign Languages at HCMC Open 
Performance Phase 
Self-Control 
Self-instruction 
Imagery 
Attention focusing 
Task strategies 
Self-observation 
Metacognitive monitoring 
Self-recording 
Forethought Phase 
Task analysis 
Goal setting 
Strategic planning 
Self-motivation beliefs 
Self-efficacy 
Outcome expectations 
Task interest/ value 
Goal orientation 
Self-reflection Phase 
Self-judgment 
Self-evaluation 
Causal attribution 
Self-reaction 
Self-satisfaction/ affect 
Adaptive/ defensive 
94 The employment of self-regulated strategies in writing process by english... 
University. The participants of the current 
study encompassed ninety-three first-year 
students from five classes. Their ages were 
from eighteen to twenty-four. There were 
seventy-three females and twenty males. 
Both male and female students responded to 
the questionnaires and joined in the 
interviews. In detail, all of the participants 
responded to the questionnaires and nine of 
them including four males and five females 
joined in the interviews. The participants of 
the study had finished Writing 1 course in the 
previous semester. It was supposed that they 
perceived the use of SRS to perform writing 
tasks and the data collection evaluated the 
hypotheses. 
3.2. Instruments 
This study used two research tools 
including questionnaire and interview. The 
contents of these instruments were adapted 
from the meaningful and comprehensible 
contents about SRS in three previous studies 
by Zimmerman (1989), Zimmerman and 
Bandura (1994), and Zimmerman (1998). In 
the questionnaire, only multiple-choice 
questions were used. They belonged to ratio 
data which were classified data into categories 
(Cohen, Manion, and Marrison, 2007, p.322). 
Specifically, the present study comprised five 
multiple-choice questions which referred to 
different writing contexts of a writing process. 
The contents of the interview were based on 
the contents of the questionnaire. The data 
also aimed to exploit learners’ experiences 
about the employments of SRS in their 
writing processes. The interview encompassed 
ten open-ended questions which concentrated 
on the writing process from the preparation 
until the completion of a writing task. In 
detail, the contents of the questions aimed to 
exploit data about the way learners prepared 
their writing, performed their writing, solved 
the distractions, sought for help, and revised 
the final drafts. 
This study focuses on various SRS which 
are useful for learners at different stages of the 
writing process. Firstly, self-efficacy 
strategies is one of the salient kinds of SRS 
which anticipate learners’ behaviors during 
writing process better than any other strategies 
(Graham and Weiner, 1996, cited in Pajares, 
2003). Depending on the academic goals, the 
beliefs of self-efficacy strategies vary in terms 
of academic motivation (Zimmerman, 2000). 
Organizing and transforming strategies refer 
to learners’ initiative actions to arrange the 
relevant information of the tasks into the 
system (Zimmerman, 1989; Zimmerman and 
Martinez-Pons, 1986). Learners can adjust the 
directions of the implementation and the 
essential materials to satisfy the requirements 
of the tasks. To start a task, it is also 
indispensable to use goal setting and planning 
strategies. The strategies aid learners to carry 
out what they have planned due to the 
timelines (Huie, Winsler, and Kitsantas, 
2014). The strategies can be described as 
learners’ responsibility to look for the 
necessary materials related to the tasks. The 
strategies help them to ensure the reliability 
and validity of the contents in their 
performance. 
Apparently, the tasks may sometimes go 
beyond learners’ capacity and seeking social 
assistance strategies from friends or seeking 
social assistance strategies from teachers turn 
to useful when learners look for the social 
supports. The stage of task performance 
seems to be more important than the stages of 
task preparation and completion. Hence, 
environment structuring strategies make 
learners perceive that they should prepare for 
a writing environment without distractions or 
disturbances. Moreover, time management 
strategies support learners to arrange and 
organize their tasks into the schedules. They 
can anticipate the time-consuming to 
complete the tasks before the deadline. During 
task performance, imagery strategies aided 
learners to write the effective writing basing 
on a plot which is adequate of visual 
illustrations (Zimmerman, 1998). With the 
 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 4 (16) 2015 – December/2015 95 
support of self-instruction strategies, learners 
can overcome the sudden obstacles in their 
cognitive processes by saying aloud what they 
tend to write (Zimmerman, 1998). Self-
consequence strategies refer to learners’ 
ability to control their behaviors during their 
task implementation. Finally, learners can 
employ keeping records and monitoring 
strategies to store the experiences from their 
task performance for further uses. 
3.3. Data analysis 
Multiple-choice questions were 
statistically analyzed to eliminate the 
unreliable data for the study by using SPSS. 
The data from six questions were significant 
since the p-value of each question which was 
smaller than .05 was significant for analysis. 
The qualitative data supported for the findings 
from the questionnaire. Significantly, all of 
the ideas to build up the contents of the 
experiment were relied on the prior prominent 
studies as mentioned above. The questions 
thoroughly described how SRS permeated 
throughout the writing process from the 
forethought phase, performance phase to the 
self-reflection phase. 
4. Findings and discussions 
4.1. The employment of SRS in writing 
process 
To respond to the first research question 
relating t ... om the points, the male 
students could write the introduction 
paragraph faster than the female students. The 
reason might be that the male and female 
students pursued different methods to write 
the introduction paragraph and each method 
took them much or less time-consuming. The 
study assumed that the male first-year 
students more frequently used self-efficacy 
strategy to start their writing than the female 
first-year students. 
When the study evaluated the gender 
difference in using seeking information 
strategies, the data from table 7 expose that 
the U score of this option (U=521.50), the Z 
score of this option (Z=-2.69), and the p-value 
of this option (p=.007) made the study admit 
the H1 since the p-value of this option was 
significantly smaller than .05. It implied that 
there was gender difference in manipulating 
seeking information strategies. Table 7 reveals 
that the MR (male students) = 36.58 whereas 
the MR (female students) = 49.86. As could 
be seen, the MR of the male students was 
smaller than the MR of the female students. 
The calculation gave out the assumption that 
the female students gave more concern on the 
searching for relevant materials than the male 
students. Possibly, the sources of materials 
were various and the male and female 
students differently used the materials, which 
were reliable and valid, to build up the 
supporting ideas for their writing. The study 
acknowledged that the female first-year 
students were better in use of seeking 
information strategies than the male first-year 
students. 
As shown in table 7, the data for the 
gender difference in using organizing and 
transforming strategies reveal that the U score 
of this option (U=535.00), the Z score of this 
option (Z=-2.32), and the p-value of this 
option (p=.020) accepted the H1. On the other 
words, the study assumed that there was 
gender difference in using organizing and 
transforming strategies since the p-value of 
this option was moderately smaller than .05. 
Table 7 exposes that the MR (male students) 
= 37.25 while the MR (female students) = 
49.67. It could be seen that the MR of the 
male students was moderately smaller than the 
MR of the female students. The statistics 
104 The employment of self-regulated strategies in writing process by english... 
revealed that the female students frequently 
carried out the strategy-action of making 
outline before writing than the male students. 
Apparently, the outline is considered as the 
spine of their writing which organizes and 
connects all of the ideas in their writing into 
the system. However, the finding posed the 
supposition that some of the male learners 
might ignore the stage of forming the outline 
before writing. It made the study conclude 
that the use of organizing and transforming 
strategies was more significant towards the 
female first-year students than the male first-
year students. 
The results of the present study were 
different from those in the prior studies. The 
prior studies gave out no differences for the 
use of self-efficacy strategy, organizing and 
transforming strategies, and seeking 
information strategies between the male and 
female students. Also, the present study found 
no gender difference in using goal setting and 
planning strategies but in the previous study 
by Pajares and Valiante (2001), the gender 
difference in goal orientation strategies was 
significant for the male students. With the 
similar objectives to figure out the gender 
differences in using SRS in learners’ writing 
processes, the prior study by Pajares, Britner, 
and Valiante (2000) found the gender 
difference in goal orientation strategies, 
particularly performance-approach, which was 
towards the female students. Zimmerman and 
Martinez-Pons (1990) also found the gender 
differences in using goal setting and planning 
strategies and the female students revealed the 
significant use of the strategies. 
Generally, the study assumed that the 
first-year male and female students differently 
used three kinds of SRS including self-
efficacy strategy to quickly write the first 
opening sentence, organizing and 
transforming strategies, and seeking 
information strategies before writing. 
4.2.2. Performance phase 
Table 8 presents the differences for the 
use of SRS in performance phase by the male 
and female participants. 
Table 8. Gender differences in using SRS in performance phase 
 Gender N MR U Z p-value 
Take notes of useful words and 
frequent-used grammatical 
structures 
Male 20 37.28 
535.50 -2.12 .034 
Female 73 49.66 
Refocus on writing when thinking 
about other things 
Male 20 38.15 
553.00 -2.11 .035 
Female 73 49.42 
In performance phase, the study measured 
the gender difference in using keeping record 
and monitoring strategies. As can be seen 
from table 8, the U score of this option 
(U=535.50), the Z score of this option (Z=-
2.12), and the p-value of this option (p=.034) 
made the study accept the H1. As being 
shown, the gender difference in using keeping 
record and monitoring strategies was found in 
this study since the p-value of this option was 
slightly smaller than .05. Table 8 also shows 
that the MR (male students) = 37.28 while the 
MR (female students) = 49.66. As could be 
seen, the MR of the male students were 
significantly smaller than the MR of the 
female students. The data implied that the 
female students frequently took notes of the 
useful vocabulary and grammar structures 
than the male students. From the points, the 
study confirmed that the female first-year 
students could use keeping record and 
monitoring strategies better than the male 
 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 4 (16) 2015 – December/2015 105 
first-year students. The similar finding about 
gender difference in using keeping record and 
monitoring strategies which was more 
significant for females was also found in the 
prior study by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons 
(1990). The finding of this prior study 
(p=.010) was more significant than the current 
study (p=.034). 
Regarding the gender difference in using 
self-efficacy strategy to refocus on task 
performance, the data from Table 8 expose 
that the U score of this option (U=553.00), the 
Z score of this option (Z=-2.11), and the p-
value of this option (p=.035) also accepted the 
H1. The data showed that the use of this kind 
of SRS by the male students was different 
from that by the female students since the p-
value of this strategy was moderately smaller 
than .05. From the data of Table 8, the 
statistics showed that the MR (male students) 
= 38.15 whereas the MR (female students) = 
49.42. As being shown, the MR of the male 
students was moderately smaller than the MR 
of the female students. The data exposed that 
the female students were able to reconcentrate 
on their task implementation faster than the 
male students. The fact was that the female 
students tended to stay away from the 
distractions and disturbances and they 
frequently prepared a quiet writing 
environment when they carried out their 
writing assignments. In case they were 
distracted from the task implementation, they 
were able to refocus on their writing 
immediately. The study deduced that the 
female first-year students were able to use 
self-efficacy strategy to refocus on writing 
when they were distracted to other things 
better than the male first-year students. 
In sum, the study concluded that the first-
year male and female students differently used 
two kinds of SRS including keeping record 
and monitoring strategies for note taking of 
useful information and self-efficacy strategy 
to regulate their behaviors during writing. 
To respond to the second research 
question, the study concluded that the male 
and female first-year learners differently used 
five SRS in forethought phase and 
performance phase. None of the gender 
difference was found in self-reflection phase. 
5. Implications and conclusion 
From the results of this study, it is 
implied that self-regulated strategies (SRS) 
are beneficial and satisfactory for successful 
learning, particularly in writing. Using the 
strategies can enhance learners’ learning 
proficiency and evoke the capacity of 
independent learning (Field, Duffy, and 
Huggins, 2014, p.2). Learners can alter SRS 
to systemize and organize their learning in an 
effective way so that they have a feeling of 
being motivated, consider learning as their 
own responsibility, and feel comfortable to 
cooperate with others for their own sake in 
learning (Zimmerman, 1986, p.308; cited in 
Field, Duffy, and Huggins, 2014, p.2). They 
become autonomous in their own learning 
when they control their learning with a proper 
schedule, arrange time for learning 
scientifically, and understand their learning 
competence towards the tasks deliberately. 
They are provided with opportunities to 
accumulate learning experiences through 
motivation and curiosity, self-confidence, and 
self-reliance basing on their comprehension 
and ability. 
 The knowledge in human’ mind can be 
forgotten and the perception of SRS is not the 
exception. Hence, this study is a reminder 
about the manipulation of SRS which 
principally aims to evoke its contents in 
learners’ minds so that they can continue to 
make use of the usefulness of the strategies in 
their own learning, particularly in writing 
performance. Additionally, the unfamiliar SRS 
are approached to them so that they can exploit 
the use of these strategies in the further tasks. 
106 The employment of self-regulated strategies in writing process by english... 
REFERENCES 
Castelló, M., Inesta, A., &Monereo, C. (2009). Toward self-regulated academic writing: An 
exploratory study with graduate students in a situated learning environment. Electronic 
Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7 (3). 1107-1130. 
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research method in education. New York, NY: 
Routledge. 
Field, R. M., Duffy, J., & Huggins, A. (2014). Independent learning skills, self-determination 
theory and psychological well-being: Strategies for supporting the first year university 
experience. International First Year in Higher Education Conference.1-10. Darwin 
Convention and Exhibition Centre, Darwin, NT. 
Hammann, L. (2005). Self-regulation in academic writing tasks. International Journal of 
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17 (1). 15-26. 
Huie, C. F., Winsler, A., &Kitsantas, A. (2014). Employment and first-year college achievement: 
The role of self-regulation and motivation. Journal of Education and Work, 27 (1). 110-135. 
Routledge. 
Kaplan, A., Lichtinger, E., &Gorodetsky, M. (2009). Achievement goal orientations and self-
regulation in writing: An integrative perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 
(1). 51-69. American Psychological Association. 
Lane, L. K., et al. (2011). Self-regulated strategy development at tier 2 for second-grade students 
with writing and behavioral difficulties: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research 
on Educational Effectiveness 4. 322-353. Routledge. 
Limpo, T., & Alves, A. R. (2013). Modeling writing development: Contribution of transcription 
and self-regulation to Portuguese students’ text generation quality. Journal of Educational 
Psychology 105 (2). 401-413. American Psychological Association, Inc. 
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the 
literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19. 139-158. Taylor & Francis Group. 
Pajares, F., and Valiante, G. (1986). Predictive utility and causal influence of the writing self-
efficacy beliefs of elementary students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 
American Educational Research Association. Eric. 
Pajares, F., and Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement 
of middle school students: A function of gender orientation? Contemporary Educational 
Psychology, 26. 366-381. Elsevier. 
Pajares, F., Britner, L. S., and Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-
beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational 
Psychology, 25.4 06-422. Elsevier. 
 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 4 (16) 2015 – December/2015 107 
Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2014). How do students self-regulate? Review of 
Zimmerman’s cyclical model of self-regulated learning. Anales de Psicología, 40 (2). 
Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia. 
Peggy, A. E., & Timothy, J. N. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and 
reflective. Instructional Science, 24. 1-24. Springer. 
Timothy, J. C., & Zimmerman, J. B. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-
based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. 
Psychology in the Schools, 41 (5). 357-550. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 
Zimmerman, J. B. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal 
of Educational Psychology, 81 (3). 329-339. American Psychological Association, Inc. 
Zimmerman, J. B. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. 
Educational Psychologist, 25 (1). 3-17. Lawrence Erlbaum Associated, Inc. 
Zimmerman, J. B. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-
regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33 (2/3). 73-86. Lawrence Erlbaum 
Associated, Inc. 
Zimmerman, J. B. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary 
Educational Psychology, 25. 82-91. Elsevier Inc. 
Zimmerman, J. B. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, 
methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research 
Journal, 45 (1). 166-183. Sage Publication. 
Zimmerman, J. B., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course 
attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31 (4). 845-862. Sage Journals. 
Zimmerman, J. B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for 
assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Education Research 
Journal, 23 (4). 614-628. Sage Journals. 
Zimmerman, J. B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: 
Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational 
Psychology, 82 (1). 51-59. American Psychological Association, Inc. 
Zimmerman, J. B., &Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive 
perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22. 73-101. Elsevier Inc. 
Wiliams, D. J., and Takaku, Seiji. (2011). Gender, writing self-efficacy, and help seeking. 
International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 1 (3). 46-54. ResearchGate.