971740

research-article2020
LTR0010.1177/1362168820971740Language Teaching ResearchBai and Wang

LANGUAGE
TEACHING
Article RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research

Conceptualizing self-regulated
1­–24
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
reading-to-write in ESL/EFL sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1362168820971740
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820971740
writing and investigating its journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr

relationships to motivation and

writing competence

Barry Bai
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Jing Wang
Zheijang University, China

Abstract
Self-regulated reading-to-write (R2W) can be portrayed as learners’ proactive learning of useful
elements (e.g. content, rhetorical features, and conventions) from reading by using strategies, which
is an effective mechanism connecting reading and writing, to improve their writing competence.
In the present study, six major types of self-regulated R2W strategies, i.e. mining reading, writerly
reading, cognitive strategies, purposive reading, recalling while writing, and peer revision reading
that can contribute to writing competence were included in the proposed self-regulated R2W
framework. Importantly, a self-regulated R2W scale was established to understand the impacts
of four types of strategies. Participants were 458 primary students (9 to 13 years old, M = 10.12,
SD = .62) in Hong Kong. They completed the self-regulated R2W questionnaire along with
motivational variables and a writing competence test. The motivational variables (i.e. self-efficacy
and perceived task values) were positively related to self-regulated R2W strategy use. Important
differences in self-regulated R2W strategy use among the high, average, and low achievers were
identified. Results indicated that self-regulated R2W strategy use had positive impacts on writing
competence. This is the first time that reading-to-write is proposed from a self-regulated learning
perspective in ESL/EFL school contexts. The self-regulated R2W framework, scale and positive
impacts of strategy use on writing have important implications for future research and practices.

Keywords
English writing competence, ESL/EFL, reading and writing connections, self-regulated R2W,
strategy use

Corresponding author:
Jing Wang, College of Education, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou, China.
Email: xiaoyuer19921023@126.com
2 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

I Introduction
Writing is a highly demanding skill (Brunstein & Glaser, 2011; Shanahan, 2016).
Students who study English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL) face even more
challenges in English writing (Bai, 2018; Gebril & Plakans, 2016). Given that writing is
important but very difficult, it is of utmost importance to identify processes or techniques
(i.e. strategies) that can enhance the quality of writing.
Writing is heavily dependent on not only cognitive processes but also linguistic and
content knowledge. Reading can function as an effective source of writing to address
students’ problems in linguistic and content knowledge (Belcher & Hirvela, 2001; Hirvela,
2013). Numerous studies have confirmed that reading can improve writing by contribut-
ing to ideation (Belcher & Hirvela, 2001), lexical acquisition (Li & Schmitt, 2009), and
language conventions (Graham et al., 2016). Some pioneering researchers proposed the
concept of reading-to-write (R2W). Much of prior research related to R2W focused on
university students’ selections and connections of ideas through reading to complete writ-
ing assignments (Hirvela, 2004, 2013). Apart from ideation, students can learn various
basic linguistic knowledge from reading to improve writing. This is especially important
for young ESL/EFL learners, as they experience many fundamental but essential prob-
lems in ideation, grammar usage, and rhetorical features (Li & Schmitt, 2009).
On the other hand, the past few decades have witnessed an increasing concern for
changing students from passively relying on teachers’ instruction to independently and
proactively acquiring knowledge and skills (Andrade, 2013; Wang & Bai, 2017). Self-
regulated learning is considered an essential twenty-first century competence, which can
enable learners to acquire new knowledge and skills independently and proactively.
Although the learner-centered approach has been advocated for a long time, it is still
faced with a host of constraints, such as limited instructional time and large class size,
and thus K-12 ESL/EFL students may still have a high level of teacher dependence
(Muñoz, 2017). Teachers control the learning process and focus on teaching basic lin-
guistic knowledge from textbooks, and students are treated as passive containers to be
filled in (Nikolov & Mihaljević Djigunović, 2011). Yet, students should be the ones who
know their weaknesses and strengths in writing. Instead of relying on teachers’ instruc-
tion, students should actively make efforts to improve writing through reading according
to their personal needs.
The present study aimed to propose a framework of self-regulated (SR) R2W, situated
in K-12 ESL/EFL writers’ contexts. Although R2W carries a certain degree of intention-
ality, by bringing self-regulation to R2W, this study seeks to portray self-regulated learn-
ers as proactive, autonomous, and strategic seekers of various basic linguistic knowledge
from reading to improve writing. SR-R2W writers are motivated learners, who initiate
the process of searching for reading materials, analyze and evaluate texts, and select and
process information, especially the information that is important to themselves, in order
to prepare for and enhance writing. The SR-R2W strategies that students may use to
learn textual features from reading to improve writing were identified based on a litera-
ture review in the present study. Although previous research has shown that reading can
improve writing competence (Gebril & Plakans, 2016; Li & Schmitt, 2009), there has
been a lack of research on SR-R2W strategies. We then constructed an SR-R2W scale
Bai and Wang 3

and examined the impacts of various types of SR-R2W strategies on writing competence,
which can provide evidence for whether SR-R2W strategy use is beneficial for writing,
serving as a basis for future research and practices. Our study pays special attention to
young ESL/EFL writers, about whom empirical research is especially lacking (Riazi,
Shi, & Haggerty, 2018). Research on second language (L2) writing and R2W has histori-
cally focused on higher educational contexts. It seems to shed relatively little light on the
R2W process of novice and/or young writers. It is necessary to pay more attention to
K-12 ESL/EFL students’ writing because an increasing number of students need to learn
English and write in English at an early age. Given the problems faced by young ESL/
EFL writers, it is important for them to employ more SR-R2W strategies in order to learn
not only content, but also lexicons, rhetorical features, and conventions from reading.

II Literature review and theoretical conceptualizations

1 Reading and writing connections
Many researchers have noted the importance of using reading as input for writing in
ESL/EFL contexts (Hirvela, 2013; Weigle & Parker, 2012). Carson and Leki (1993) pro-
posed reading for writing as literacy events where writers use texts that they read as a
basis for writing their own. Similarly, Hirvela (2004, 2013) used the term ‘reading to
write’ that views reading as an important resource of writing. For Hirvela (2013, p. 8),
‘Reading-to-write involves a conscious link of reading and writing or a belief in reading
as a process of composing similar to writing.’
Through reading, students can build their own repertoire not only on ideation but also
on lexicons, conventions and processes for writing. Although empirical studies for ESL/
EFL reading–writing connections are lacking, a wide body of research on L1 students
provides evidence for the connections between reading and writing (Kent & Wanzek,
2016). Reading and writing share similar cognitive processes and knowledge representa-
tions at different levels, e.g. metaknowledge (purposes of reading and writing and prior
knowledge about certain topics), semantics, graphophonics, syntax, and text formats
(Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000; Shanahan, 2016). For example, Schoonen (2019) found
that declarative linguistic knowledge may be the source of connections between EFL
reading and writing for 389 eighth graders in the Netherlands. On native English learn-
ers, extensive studies with correlational approaches suggest that reading abilities and
writing abilities are correlated across different developmental levels (Fitzgerald &
Shanahan, 2000). For example, Shanahan and Lomax (1986) found an interactive rela-
tionship between the specific components of reading (i.e. word analysis, vocabulary, and
sentence and passage comprehension) and writing (i.e. spelling, vocabulary, structure,
and story organization).
With a more practical purpose, some ESL/EFL researchers have confirmed the effects
of R2W through experimental research that provides students with reading materials to
facilitate their writing. Extensive reading was found to have positive impacts on ESL/
EFL writing (Alqadi & Alqadi, 2013; Tsang, 1996). Tsang (1996) compared the effects
of enriched programs (i.e. extensive reading and frequent writing) on Hong Kong sec-
ondary students’ English writing. The findings showed that the students who did
4 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

extensive reading significantly improved their writing competence, but the students who
did frequent writing or did mathematic practice had no changes. Alqadi and Alqadi
(2013) showed that extensive reading promoted EFL students’ paragraph-level writing
and grammar accuracy. Other studies showed that, through reading, students developed
a sense of reader-friendly text features (Sengupta, 1999), accumulated lexical phrases
(Gebril & Plakans, 2016; Li & Schmitt, 2009), and learned conventional forms for writ-
ten communication (Charney & Carlson, 1995), which also contributed to the overall
quality of writing.
More anecdotal evidence for the benefits of R2W comes from teaching experts and
proficient writers. Some experienced teachers realized the connections between reading
and writing, and recommended a pedagogical combination (Gallagher, 2011). Through
interviews, Doubet and Southall (2018) found that most English teachers believed that
reading and writing shared common processes and should be integrated into instruction.
According to in-service teachers, explicitly teaching the connections between these two
literacy skills can boost students’ writing competence more effectively than teaching
writing alone (Graham et al., 2016; Hirvela, 2013). Reading can benefit writing in terms
of improving comprehension for a subject, increasing lexical diversity, and exposure to
different writing styles (Dockrell, Marshall, & Wyse, 2016).

2 Current theoretical conceptualizations of R2W

Flower et al. (1990) proposed a conceptual framework that included the cognitive and
social processes involved in university students’ reading-to-write in an L1 context mainly
through such methods as interviews, think-aloud protocols, and class observations. For
Flower et al. (1990), R2W in university is both a cognitive and social act, enacted with
strategy use. Similarly, Carson and Leki (1993) showed that both the cognitive (e.g.
phonological processing and morphological awareness) and social dimensions (e.g.
reading as a collaborative and interactive activity and assessing the writer’s intentions)
play a role in the development of L2 R2W.
Despite the seminal work by Flower et al. (1990) and Carson and Leki (1993), there
has not been a systematic framework that examines how reading-to-write may be config-
ured and take place in ESL/EFL contexts. In his extensive review of the R2W literature,
Grabe (2001) identified some key thematic domains that need further exploration, e.g. a
theory of learning and a theory of motivational and affective factors. As learning theories
evolve, individual learners’ agency has been increasingly gaining attention. The recent
development in educational psychology focuses on shifting learners from a passive
receptacle for knowledge to motivated, self-initiated, and self-regulated individuals who
process information in complex ways. R2W itself hints at a certain degree of individual
learners’ agency, for which metacognition (i.e. cognition about cognition) can be taught
for learners to consciously and intentionally attend to and select reading materials to
improve writing according to Flavell (1981). Although reading-to-write itself may reflect
some metacognition, the existing framework does not emphasize motivation and strategy
use that must be taken into consideration alongside cognition and learning in designing
effective classroom instructions. Many ESL/EFL writers may show a sophisticated and
varied understanding of why reading-to-write works, and how their learning endeavors
Bai and Wang 5

can be facilitated due to their differences in such factors as motivation, metacognition,

and strategy use. Therefore, the present study proposes self-regulated learning that
encompasses motivation, cognition, metacognition and behaviors (Pintrich, 2003;
Zimmerman, 1989) as a new theoretical lens into conceptualizing R2W.
Another problem with the existing reading-to-write framework is its predominant
focus on only one aspect of R2W i.e. ideation, making it less ideal for young ESL/EFL
learners. Some pioneering work on R2W has focused on learners’ interpretation and
synthesis of ideas from reading to create their own texts (e.g. Hirvela, 2013). Great atten-
tion has also been paid to university students’ R2W, which they employed to produce
written assignments with source texts (Flower et al., 1990). In K-12 classroom contexts,
teachers may ask students to write summaries, reviews, and comments based on the read-
ing material, which is an attempt to integrate reading and writing through reflecting on
the content. For young ESL/EFL learners, nevertheless, it may be more beneficial to
highlight that students should consciously learn not only the content, but also lexicons,
rhetorical features, and conventions from reading (for more details, see Section II.4).

3 Adding self-regulated learning to reading-to-write

Self-regulated learning (SRL) may present a new perspective on conceptualizing R2W.
SRL refers to a proactive process in which individuals motivationally, metacognitively,
and behaviorally participate in their learning (Zimmerman, 1989). Motivation in SRL
has been confirmed to be a driving force that leads to individual learner differences
(Pintrich, 2003). It is widely acknowledged that academic motivation serves as energiza-
tion and direction of behaviors, i.e. strategy use (Pintrich, 2003). In writing research,
students’ perceived capability to perform a writing task (i.e. self-efficacy) has been a
major focus and has consistently been shown to be a positive predictor of strategy use
and writing competence (Bruning et al., 2013). In addition, two primary task values, i.e.
interest and utility, were found to be positively correlated with language learning perfor-
mance and writing performance (Lee, Yu & Liu, 2018). Students are more willing to
engage in writing when they realize the utility of writing and get enjoyment in the writ-
ing process. Bai and Guo (2019) and Bai, Wang and Nie (2020) conducted a series of
studies on ESL/EFL learners’ writing motivation. The results showed that writing self-
efficacy, perceived utility, and interest were positively related to writing strategy use and
writing competence.
Self-regulated learners need to have not only the ‘will’ (academic motivation) to use
the skill but also the ‘skill’ (learning strategies) to improve efficiency. A wide range of
SRL strategies are used by learners to manage their thoughts, behaviors, emotions, and
environments to achieve preset goals (Zimmerman, 1989). Highly motivated learners
employ more SRL strategies to achieve success than those who are not motivated.
Additionally, self-regulation revolves a cycle of self-initiations, self-observations, self-
judgements, and self-reactions (Bandura, 1986). To be self-regulated, learners set per-
sonal goals, engage in academic behaviors, make efforts and manage the environment,
constantly monitor learning and evaluate their performance, and make reactions and
adjustments to achieve goals (Pintrich & Zusho, 2002; Zimmerman, 1990).
6 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

It is obvious that R2W carries a certain degree of goal-orientedness in that students

aim to improve writing from reading. By highlighting self-regulation, we want to empha-
size self-regulated R2W as an autonomous, self-initiated and strategic process. Self-
initiation means that students proactively initiate their improvement of writing by reading
rather than passively waiting for teachers’ and/or peers’ help. Through monitoring their
own writing and assessing performance, which are termed as self-observations and self-
judgments by Bandura (1986), students become more aware of their own weaknesses
and strengths in writing, so they specifically look for textual materials that contribute to
their development in certain writing components (i.e. self-reactions). It means that their
self-regulation from self-initiation to self-reaction can be extremely personalized, some-
thing which cannot be simply provided by teachers, who have to teach many students in
the classroom. For example, some students may pay more attention to use of words and
phrases in reading materials, whereas others may learn other features, e.g. organization
and coherence in reading.
In order to enact learning successfully, students need to employ SR-R2W strategies,
which are actions and processes used to achieve the goal of improving writing.
Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) proposed strategies of environmental self-regulation
in writing. For example, ‘self-selected tutors, models, and books refer to social sources
of writing knowledge and skill, such as learning to use metaphors by imitating a gifted
novelist’ (p. 79). What they call environmental strategies can thus be perceived as a type
of SR-R2W strategies. Strategies for self-regulation of cognition, such as rehearsal,
organization, and elaboration that directly target information processing can also be used
to facilitate the storage of new information from reading into memory for writing
(Pintrich et al., 1991; Zimmerman & Pons, 1986). Students who are self-regulated in the
R2W process can become more effective learners as they use various strategies.

4 Adding reading-to-write to self-regulated writing

In the domain of English writing, researchers have identified processes or techniques
used to enhance writing in both L1 (Graham, Harris, MacArthur, & Santangelo, 2018)
and ESL/EFL contexts (Bai, 2018). Based on Flower and Hayes’s (1981) framework,
self-regulated writing strategies can be divided into three major writing stages, i.e. plan-
ning, translating (generating texts), and reviewing (revising). Considerable research has
shown that self-regulated writing strategies are positively related to the quality of writing
(Bai, 2018; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). Proficient writers have a more extensive
repertoire of strategies, e.g. planning, monitoring, generating text, self-evaluation, and
revising, and employ their strategies more often than their weak counterparts (Hu & Gao,
2018). By employing experimental designs, prior studies have shown that teaching writ-
ing strategies to students helps improve their writing achievements, which further con-
firms the causal impacts of self-regulated writing strategy use on writing competence
(Bai, 2015; Limpo & Alves, 2013).
However, the self-regulated writing strategies mentioned above may appear very chal-
lenging for young ESL/EFL writers to learn and employ (Chen, 2009). In addition, merely
using these strategies is far from enough for ESL/EFL writers to become proficient writ-
ers. Crinon and Legros (2002) noted that writing involves two levels. Self-regulated
Bai and Wang 7

writing processes, e.g. planning, translating or revising, are the higher-level processes,
whereas lower-level functions refer to those used for learning vocabulary, spelling, syn-
tax, and conventions. ESL/EFL learners may rely excessively on their L2 linguistic
knowledge and their access speed to this knowledge in the writing process (Harrison
et al., 2016). Due to a lack of English linguistic knowledge, ESL/EFL writers have more
fundamental problems, e.g. a limited vocabulary and conventional mistakes, as well as
having no ideas in writing, compared with their L1 counterparts (Gebril & Plakans, 2016;
Li & Schmitt, 2009). Specifically, students may have little background knowledge about
a certain writing topic, and thus cannot generate ideas while planning. Furthermore, ESL/
EFL writers may not be able to find suitable words or to follow rules of written expres-
sions while producing texts. They cannot ensure language accuracy while evaluating and
revising their writing. Although lexicons and conventions seem to connote low-level
knowledge, these are fundamental problems faced by ESL/EFL writers (Gebril & Plakans,
2016; Li & Schmitt, 2009). Adding R2W to the package of self-regulated writing can be
eminently suited to address students’ problems and some existing research gaps, because
reading can function as an effective source of writing for ESL/EFL learners, who may not
use English as a main language in their daily lives.

5 A framework of self-regulated reading-to-write

in ESL/EFL school contexts
Reflected by its definition, self-regulated R2W comprises two phases, i.e. reading and
writing. Research suggests that reading and writing are intimately interactive (Carson &
Leki, 1993; Hirvela, 2004, 2013). Reading can influence writing development, and vice
versa. Although writing to read is also an issue of importance, it is beyond the scope of
this framework, so the framework only focuses on how reading promotes writing. Self-
regulated R2W can happen before students know the writing topics (see Figure 1). Even
though students may not have a topic in mind, they can read extensively (i.e. mining
reading), consciously acquire certain linguistic knowledge, and gain ideas in reading to
prepare for future writing. While reading, students need to have the sense that reading
can be useful input for writing. Students will critically analyze and evaluate materials to
learn the good aspects. Furthermore, when students are aware of their strengths and
weaknesses, they may specifically pay attention to certain textual components while
reading. Existing cognitive strategies, e.g. rehearsal, elaboration, and organization for
information processing can also be used at this stage to promote the acquisition of infor-
mation from reading to improve writing.
The next part exhibits the connections between reading and writing, which are the
main textual features students can search for and extract in reading to improve writing,
i.e. content, lexicons, rhetorical patterns, and other basic conventions. Various theorists
have pointed out that reading and writing share similar knowledge representations, e.g.
metaknowledge, semantics, syntax, and text formats (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000;
Shanahan, 2016).
Next, writing after students know the topic should be considered. The topic may be
set by others or students themselves. The writing process can be divided into three
8 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Reading (Input) Writing (Output)

Purposive
Pre-writing reading

Planning Recalling
Mining reading Content Lexicons
Reading extensively to improve writing

Writerly reading
Critically analyzing and evaluating
Connections
During writing
materials between reading
and writing Text-
Cognitive strategy generation Monitoring Recalling
Rehearsal, elaborating, and organizing Purposive
reading;
reading materials to build own
Rhetorical Peer revision
resources Conventions
features
Post-writing
Revising Recalling

Figure 1.  A framework of self-regulated reading-to-write.

Notes. Connections between reading and writing are highlighted. Self-regulated R2W strategies are under-
lined and embedded in different stages of self-regulated reading-to-write.

phases, i.e. pre-writing (plan), during writing (text-generation), and post-writing (revis-
ing) (Brunstein & Glaser, 2011; Flower & Hayes, 1981). Students can recall the informa-
tion accumulated in reading (i.e. recalling), which serves as some basis in the whole
writing process.
Additionally, students can purposively search for and read something related to the
writing topic to gain information needed for writing (i.e. purposive reading). When con-
fronted with problems, self-regulated learners should autonomously and purposively
search for good samples that meet their personal needs, rather than relying on teachers
for model texts. Students also can have model texts after writing when they have identi-
fied their ‘holes’ and ‘gaps’ in writing, and they should notice the solutions in model
texts and incorporate them in revised texts, which can lead to more adequate revisions
(Hanaoka, 2007).
Revising texts is a final process that can greatly improve students’ writing. However,
students are generally not sensitive to their own errors, making self-revision difficult.
Students may initiate peer revision reading, e.g. exchanging and reviewing peers’ com-
positions, receiving peers’ feedback, and looking for solutions together, which can
improve the quality of revision (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Nelson & Schunn, 2009).

6 Identifying self-regulated reading-to-write strategies

Six major types of SR-R2W strategies can be identified from the literature and used at
different stages of the R2W process. Table 1 presents the definition, specific activities,
and benefits of each strategy type.
The first three types of SR-R2W strategies can be used together to analyse, evaluate,
and acquire information for future writing even though students may not know the writ-
ing topic. Mining reading involves maximizing the collection of linguistic and back-
ground knowledge from reading. Greene (1992) compared the knowledge acquisition in
Table 1.  Self-regulated reading-to-write strategies.
Type
1. Mining reading
2. Writerly reading
3.1 Cognitive-rehearsal
3.2 Cognitive-elaboration
3.3 Cognitive-organization
4.1 Purposive reading-before writing
4.2 Purposive reading-after writing
5. Recalling while writing
6. Peer revision reading
Definition
Students maximize reading and acquiring
information for future writing.
Students think like a writer instead of a
reader while reading to experience the
decision-making process.
Students use rehearsal strategies to
remember textual features in previous
reading to improve writing.
Students use elaboration strategies to
store textual features in previous reading
into long-term memory, and to build
internal connections, to improve writing.
Students use elaboration strategies to
select and construct connections of textual
features in previous reading, so as to
improve writing.
Students purposively search for sample
texts before writing.
Students purposively search for sample
texts after writing.
Students recall previous reading during
writing.
Students collaborate with peers to make
revisions.
Specific activities
Search, evaluate, extract.
Self-question, evaluate, think
of improvements.
Memorize, make a list.
Summary, make notes, imagine the scene,
draw mind maps.
Cluster, outline, select, make charts,
diagrams, and tables.
Ask teachers, search on the Internet, go
to the library, find solutions.
Notice own problems, find solutions, and
revise.
Think of previous reading in pre-, while,
and post-writing.
Exchange and read peers’ compositions,
critically evaluate, offer feedback,
incorporate suggestions.
Potential benefits
Gain domain and linguistic
knowledge; be exposed to textual
features; raise variations of
Bai and Wang
lexicons and rhetorical patterns.
Acquire knowledge of text
evaluation; identify and absorb
good textual features; experience
the decision-making process.
Memorize and accumulate ideas,
vocabularies, rhetorical features
and conventions to build up
students’ own resources for
writing.
Store textual features into the
long-term memory; integrate
information.
Store information systematically
and selectively.
Gain domain knowledge; learn
textual features directly related to
the writing topic; create mental
models of certain genres.
Find solutions after initial writing;
incorporate new ideas/information
into writing.
Recall domain and linguistic
knowledge; raise variations of
lexicons and rhetorical patterns.
Practice evaluation and detection;
develop a sense of good texts;
9
gain corrective feedback from
peers; make improvements.
10 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

reading to the image of miners who dig out the coal. Students are encouraged to work on
a variety of topics of different styles by reading extensively, and to read following their
own interests, so that they can be exposed to a large pool of vocabulary, ideas, structures,
and conventions (Hirvela, 2013). While reading, ‘miners’ explicitly link reading and
writing, and learn overtly about writing in reading (Plakans, 2009). They evaluate and
extract information beneficial to themselves, which raises the variations of lexicons and
rhetorical patterns that may be useful to their own writing about a topic.
Writerly reading involves the reader’s approaching texts from a writer’s perspective,
that is, constantly evaluating and making judgments about the texts, and pretending to be
the writer to think of improvements. Originally, writerly reading was proposed by Hirvela
(2004, 2013) to highlight critical thinking in text-based reading. Many researchers have
noted that readers need to evaluate the texts regarding whether the evidence is supportive
and think of alternative conclusions and improvements (Pally, 1997). Writerly readers
are reading but also thinking like a writer rather than a reader only. Students are not
always provided with well-written texts, so they need to evaluate the texts, identify good
ways of writing, and criticize not so well-developed texts. They will question everything
from a writer’s perspective, e.g. sequencing of ideas and vocabulary choices. By asking
themselves questions, readers can learn to evaluate texts and experience writers’ deci-
sion-making process, and they will gradually develop a sense of how to write good texts
by themselves.
Furthermore, informed by the cognitive component of self-regulation (Boekaerts,
1996), students can use cognitive strategies to promote the acquisition of new informa-
tion in reading for writing: (1) rehearsal strategies, e.g. remembering the use of words,
especially good expressions, bright metaphors, transitional words and phrases; (2) elabo-
ration strategies, e.g. summarizing, making notes, imagining the scene described in read-
ing, and drawing mind maps to store the ideas from reading into the long-term memory,
and build connections between their reading and existing knowledge; and (3) organiza-
tion strategies, e.g. outlining the text, making charts, diagrams or tables, to learn struc-
tures of texts, identify main points, and construct connections in the information
(Boekaerts, 1996; Pintrich et al., 1991).
The fourth strategy type, purposive reading (e.g. model texts), can be used after stu-
dents know their writing topic. Students cannot write on a given topic that they know
little about. This is especially the case in academic writing, in which students are expected
to search for, read, and synthesize information from multiple sources to write on a topic.
On the other hand, novice writers may have little linguistic knowledge about certain
genres (e.g. mail, resume, and research text) because each genre has its conventional
forms, rhetorical features, and stylistic patterns.
Many studies have shown that providing students with written examples of proficient
writers can inspire ideas, and improve students’ vocabulary use and rhetorical features
(Mayo & Labandibar, 2017; Graham et al., 2016). In particular, research on genre-based
writing instructions has shown that representative model texts helped students with
organization and necessary details (Charney & Carlson, 1995; Crinon & Legros, 2002).
By reading model texts, students get to know the target rhetorical conventions of the
genre and develop a mental model for writing (Crinon & Legros, 2002).
Bai and Wang 11

Providing students with model texts is a powerful pedagogical strategy (Grabe, 2001).
As self-regulated learners, students should proactively find personalized solutions to
deal with problems in writing based on awareness of their own needs and problems. They
can search for model texts according to their personal needs on the Internet, go to the
library, and/or ask teachers/friends for help.
Furthermore, researchers noted that offering models at the beginning may result in
students’ over-reliance on the existing texts, which will constrain their individual voice
and use of linguistic resources (Mayo & Labandibar, 2017). Therefore, high-proficiency
students can search for model texts after the initial draft. After some initial writing by
themselves, students can notice their problems, based on which they can purposively
search for model texts and work out solutions. For example, Coyle, CáNovas Guirao,
and Roca de Larios (2018) first asked EFL students to draft their compositions, offered
the students with models, and then asked them to compare their texts with the model, and
revise. The students rewrote their texts by incorporating feedback and adding further
acceptable content. The study showed that the students who received instruction with
models followed more beneficial trajectories (e.g. improved accuracy, more ideas and
more linguistic options) than their peers who did not.
The next type of strategies, recalling while writing refers to learners’ consciously
recalling previous reading to set goals, generate and organize ideas, and make plans on
organization and tenses. During writing, students also constantly retrieve the phrases
from memory to convert ideas into textual output. In revision, students may also recall
the mechanics in previous reading to correct errors. Although the activation of informa-
tion from memory may occur automatically, researchers posit that self-regulated learners
often recall previous reading in a planful way through self-questioning, e.g. ‘what verb
tenses do other writers use to describe a thing of the past?’
The last type is peer revision reading. A critical feature of self-regulated learners is
their proactive engagement in collaboration or seeking help from others (Pintrich et al.,
1991). After independently revising their own drafts, students can exchange their com-
positions, read each other’s compositions, and provide feedback to each other. Student
writers will become each other’s readers. In their reading process, they actively analyze
and evaluate information, and then give their comments to peers. The writers need to
discuss their own meanings with their readers as well. They can accept or reject their
readers’ suggestions and comments based on sound reasons. Subsequent revisions will
be made accordingly. This strategy can enable both peers to critically evaluate and
improve their writing in a collaborative manner.
Prior studies have highlighted the benefits of peer revision in writing (Lee & Evans,
2019; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Nelson & Schunn, 2009; Yu & Lee, 2016). Nelson and
Schunn (2009) investigated which feedback features particularly contributed to feedback
implementation. They found that three features, i.e. highlighting where the problem
occurs (location), offering suggestions for how to fix a problem, and repeating the main
points (summarization), were associated with the implementation of feedback.
Furthermore, students also learn to evaluate others’ writing and improve their own writ-
ing by employing peer revision reading (Lee & Evans, 2019; Yu & Lee, 2016). Reviewing
others’ compositions allows writers to take readers’ needs into consideration, practice
evaluation and detection, and become more aware of what constitutes a good text, which
12 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

can contribute to their own writing (Wooley, Was, Schunn, & Dalton, 2008). Interestingly,
Lundstrom and Baker (2009) found that giving peer feedback is more beneficial to stu-
dents’ writing competence than receiving peer feedback. Therefore, such research find-
ings suggest that students should seek peers’ feedback and at the same time offer
comments that specifically locate problems and offer solutions rather than merely giving
ratings. Lee and Evans’s (2019) study showed that students were able to access and learn
multiple aspects of writing and develop a habit of self-revision through giving
feedback.

7 The empirical study

In the empirical part of the study, we examined the relationships between motivation and
SR-R2W strategy use, as well as the impacts of strategy use on writing competence. This
study focused on four types of motivational variables, reading self-efficacy, writing self-
efficacy, interest and utility of writing, and their relationships with strategy use.
The following research questions were addressed:

1. What are the relationships between self-regulated R2W strategies and motiva-
tional variables (i.e. reading self-efficacy, writing self-efficacy, and perceived
task values)?
2. What are the impacts of self-regulated R2W strategy use on students’ writing
competence?

III Method
1 Participants and context
Five hundred and sixteen 5th graders from four primary schools in Hong Kong were
invited to join the study. Among them, 458 students completed both the questionnaire
and writing test. Of those reporting their gender (n = 454), 222 (48.9%) were boys and
232 (51.1%) girls. Ages ranged from 9 to 13 (M = 10.12, SD = .62). Most participants
were Chinese speakers (either Mandarin or Cantonese). Hong Kong children begin to
systematically learn English after entering primary school. They generally have seven to
ten English lessons of 35–40 minutes per week, among which two are scheduled for
learning English writing. Since Cantonese is the medium of instruction in most schools
and only English lessons are taught in English, English practice, especially writing in
English, is not a regular activity for most Hong Kong children. According to the most
recent English Language Education Curriculum Guide (Curriculum Development
Council, 2017), Primary 1–3 students begin to learn to use the basic conventions of writ-
ten English (e.g. combining letters to form words, spacing letters, words and sentences),
reproduce sentences based on teachers’ model, express ideas with help, use basic cohe-
sive devices, gather and share information, and draft, revise and edit short written texts.
In Primary 4–6, students learn to employ writing skills, such as brainstorming and inter-
viewing to gather and share information, planning and organizing information, using
more advanced cohesive devices and a wider range of language patterns, and revising
Bai and Wang 13

and editing written texts. Additionally, Primary 4–6 students also learn to combine and
sequence ideas, and substitute words or phrases with more appropriate ones. Hong Kong
Primary 3 and 6 students are normally required to write a composition of about 30 words
and 80 words respectively in large-scale examinations, e.g. Territory-wide System
Assessment (TSA).

2 Measures
a  Self-regulated reading-to-write scale (SR-R2WS).  The items were initially formulated by
the two authors of the present study based on a comprehensive literature review, and
were developed under the supervision of a professor in writing research. Then, the items
were further refined through several rounds of discussions with three experienced pri-
mary English teachers, who helped add or delete some items, and change the wording to
ensure that the questionnaire was suitable for primary school students. According to the
primary school teachers, writerly reading and purposive search for sample texts may
seldom be employed by many primary school students in Hong Kong, so the scale was
designed to measure four types of SR-R2W strategies among the six.
The scale consisted of 34 items corresponding to four subscales of self-regulated
R2W experience (see Table 2). Mining reading and recalling while writing are based on
the self-regulated R2W process, in which students gain linguistic knowledge from read-
ing, and recall and use what they gain from the input stage to write. Both mining reading
and recalling while writing assess what students learn from reading to improve writing.
The mining reading subscale (13 items) includes the specific textual features that stu-
dents may pay attention to while reading to improve their writing, including vocabulary
(e.g. nouns, adjectives and verbs, 3 items), organization (e.g. connections and idea
sequence, 3 items), content (e.g. characters, setting and events, 4 items), and conventions
(e.g. grammar use, spelling, punctuation and capitalization, 3 items). The recalling while
writing subscale (11 items) consists of the specific textual features students may recall
while writing, including one item that assesses the extent students recall words learnt
from reading, and 10 items that correspond to the aspects in mining reading, i.e. organi-
zation (3 items), content (4 items), and conventions (3 items). Cognitive strategies (4
items) measure the extent to which students memorize, organize and store textual fea-
tures into long-term memory to improve future writing, which can make the information
processing more effectively. Peer revision reading (4 items) involves cooperation with
peers. Students read each other’s compositions and offer feedback, in which the goal was
to make revisions. The students responded to the items on a five-point scale from 1
(‘never’) to 5 (‘always’).

b  Motivational variables.  The motivational variables included self-efficacy for writing

and reading, and perceived task values (i.e. interest and utility). The writing self-efficacy
scale (4 items, α = .90) and reading self-efficacy scale (4 items, α = .89) were adapted
from Pintrich and De Groot (1990). These items measured students’ perceived capabili-
ties in writing and reading. A sample item of writing self-efficacy was ‘I am confident in
my English writing ability.’ A sample item of reading self-efficacy was ‘I can finish my
English reading homework independently.’
14 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Table 2.  Standardized factor loadings and item wordings for the four self-regulated read-to-
write subscales.
Factor Item wording Coefficient

Mining reading: When I am reading to improve my English writing . . .:

RHE1. I pay attention to how sentences are organized into a paragraph (e.g. .778
using connectives).
RHE2. I pay attention to how different paragraphs are linked together. .751
RHE3. I pay attention to how ideas are sequenced. .728
RCT1. I pay attention to what kind of content is included. .746
RCT2. I pay attention to how the characters are described in the story. .757
RCT3. I pay attention to how the setting is described in the story. .761
RCT4. I pay attention to the development of events in the story. .766
RCV1. I pay attention to grammar use, e.g. noun forms and tenses. .738
RCV2. I pay attention to the spelling of words. .702
RCV3. I pay attention to the use of punctuation and capitalization. .556
Recalling while writing: When I am writing an English composition . . .:
WLE1. I think about if the words I learnt from reading can be used in .779
my composition.
WHE1. I recall how sentences are organized into a paragraph in my .843
previous reading.
WHE2. I recall how different paragraphs are linked together in my .843
previous reading.
WHE3. I recall how the ideas are sequenced in my previous reading. .827
WCT1. I recall the content included in my previous reading. .811
WCT2. I recall how the characters are described in the story I read before. .808
WCT3. I recall how the setting is described in the story I read before. .800
WCT4. I recall the development of events in the story I read before. .804
WCV1. I recall the grammar use in my previous reading. .794
WCV2. I recall the spelling of words in my previous reading. .770
WCV3. I recall the use of punctuation and capitalization in my previous .621
reading.
Cognitive strategies: I am reading to help me improve my English writing:
COG1. I visualize the scene described in the story. .778
COG 2. I outline the story I am reading (e.g. using mind maps). .750
COG 3. I summarize the story I have read. .804
COG 4. I analyse the structure of the story. .814
Peer revision reading: When I am reading my classmates’ English compositions . . .:
PR1. I think about how I would improve the use of vocabulary if I .825
were the writer.
PR2. I think about how I would improve the organization of ideas if .880
I were the writer.
PR3. I think about how I would improve the content if I were the .874
writer.
PR4. I think about how I would improve the grammar use (e.g. noun .836
forms and tenses) if I were the writer.

The writing interest (4 items, α = .94) and utility scale (4 items, α = .84) were also
adapted from Pintrich and De Groot (1990). The interest scale measured students’ interest
and enjoyment in English writing. One sample item was ‘I enjoy writing English composi-
tions.’ The utility scale measured students’ evaluation of how important and useful English
Bai and Wang 15

writing is. One sample item was ‘English writing is a useful skill.’ All the items were
scored on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’).

c  Writing competence test. Three experienced primary school English teachers (who

were also involved in questionnaire development) created and checked the suitability of
the writing test for 5th graders. The students finished writing a narrative story of at least
80 words based on one set of pictures within 30–40 minutes. Another two experienced
English teachers rated the compositions on four aspects, i.e. content, language, vocabu-
lary, and organization on a 12-point scale from 1 (‘low quality’) to 12 (‘high quality’) for
each aspect, resulting in a total score of 48. Inter-rater reliability was good, Spearman’s
rho = .898, p < .001. The significant differences between the top 27% (n =126) and the
bottom 27% groups (n =126) of the participants on the total scores (t = 38.357, p < .001)
indicted that the writing test had good discriminant validity.

3 Procedures
Approvals were obtained from the ethics committee of the university, participating
schools and students’ guardians. The students answered a Chinese version of the ques-
tionnaire. The same three English teachers, who were fluent in both Chinese and English,
performed original and back-translation to evaluate consistency. The questionnaire took
the students approximately 20 minutes to complete. Then, the students took the writing
competence test approximately one month after completing the questionnaire.

IV Results
First, we examined the goodness of fit of the SR-R2WS data to a hypothesized four-
factor model and the alternative one factor model to test the separability of each dimen-
sion. The comparison of the model fit is presented in Table 3. The confirmatory factor
analyses (CFA) models were evaluated by multiple indexes, including the Comparative
Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approxima-
tion (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). An acceptable
(excellent) model should have a CFI and a TLI value exceeding .90 (.95), an RMSEA
value less than .08 (.05), and SRMR less than .08 (.05).
The single-factor model showed a poor fit: CFI = .83, TLI = .84, RMSEA = .093,
95% CI [.090, .097], SRMR = .054, and χ2/df = 4.994 (p < .01), indicating that a single-
factor model could not adequately explain the data structure. The four-factor model was
a significant improvement over the one-factor model: Δχ2 = 777.279, df = 14, p < .001.
The fit for the four-factor model was acceptable: CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .067,
95% CI [.063, .071], SRMR = .041, and χ2/df = 3.035 (p < .01). The factor loadings
ranged from .556 to .778 (p < .001) for mining reading, .750 to .814 (p < .001) for cog-
nitive strategies, .621 to .843 (p < .001) for recalling while writing, and .825 to .880
(p < .001) for peer revision reading (see Table 2).
Reliabilities and means for each of the four subscales were mining reading α = .94,
M = 3.30, SD = .87, recalling reading while writing α = .95, M = 3.31, SD = .97,
16 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Table 3.  Model fit comparisons.

df χ2 χ2/df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR AIC

One-factor model 434 2167.195 4.994 .845 .834 .093 (.090, .097) .0540 2291.195
Four-factor model 458 1389.916 3.035 .921 .914 .067 (.063, .071) .0410 1529.916
Higher order 460 1419.339 3.086 .921 .915 .067 (.063, .071) .0413 1555.339
four-factor model

cognitive strategies α = .92, M = 3.22, SD = 1.04, and peer revision reading α = .87,
M = 3.19, SD = 1.12, respectively.
The four subscales of self-regulated R2W were highly correlated with each other (rs
ranged from .715 to .836, see Table 4). Given the high correlations between the four
subscales, we also conducted a higher order CFA with the four subscales as four lower
order constructs, and self-regulated R2W as a higher order construct. The higher order
CFA model was also acceptable: CFI = .92, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .067, 95% CI [.063,
.071], SRMR = .041, and χ2/df = 3.086 (p < .01). For comparisons of the model, we
also investigated the Akaike information criteria (AIC). A smaller AIC means that the
model is more fit and parsimonious. Thus, our study adopted a four-factor SR-R2WS.

Research question 1: The relationships between self-regulated

R2W strategies and motivational variables (i.e. reading self-efficacy,
writing self-efficacy, and perceived task values)
Table 4 presents the correlations between self-regulated R2W strategy use, motivational
variables, and writing test scores. Each of the four SR-R2W strategy types showed sig-
nificant positive correlations to the motivational variables. Mining reading, recalling
while writing, and cognitive strategies were positively related to English reading self-
efficacy (rs ranging from .61 to .70, p < .01), English writing self-efficacy (rs ranging
from .65 to .70, p < .01), English writing interest (rs ranging from .63 to .67, p < .01),
and English writing utility (rs ranging from .51 to .53, p < .01). Peer revision reading
was also strongly related to English writing self-efficacy (r = .62, p < .01) and English
writing interest (r = .67, p < .01), and was positively related to English reading self-
efficacy (r = .58, p < .01) and English writing utility (r = .49, p < .01).

Research question 2: The impacts of self-regulated R2W strategy

use on students’ writing competence
The four types of SR-R2W strategies were all positively related to the students’ writing
test scores (rs ranging from .39 to .43, p < .01). Further, a multivariate analysis of vari-
ance (MANOVA) was conducted to examine mean-level differences in SR-R2W strat-
egy use among the students of different writing competence levels. The top 27%, middle
46%, and bottom 27% of the participants were first categorized into high (n = 126),
average (n = 206), and low writing achievers (n = 126). Multivariate tests showed that
there was an overall effect of writing competence groups (Wilks’ λ = .812,
Bai and Wang 17

Table 4.  Correlations between self-regulated read-to-write subscales, motivational variables,

and writing test scores.

RECY WRCY INT UTI MR RCW COG PR WSCO

RECY 1  
WRCY .78** 1  
INT .64** .68** 1  
UTI .47** .58** .61** 1  
MR .70** .70** .66** .53** 1  
RCW .67** .71** .67** .52** .83** 1  
COG .61** .65** .63** .51** .76** .84** 1  
PR .58** .62** .67** .49** .72** .78** .76** 1  
WSCO .51** .45** .39** .33** .44** .44** .39** .43** 1
Mean 3.45 3.55 2.96 3.96 3.31 3.31 3.22 3.19 14.72
SD 1.06 1.03 1.28 0.94 0.87 0.97 1.04 1.12 9.93

Notes. RECY = English reading self-efficacy. WRCY = English writing self-efficacy. INT = English writing
interest. UTI = English writing utility. MR = mining reading. RCW = recalling while writing. COG = cogni-
tive strategies. PR = peer revision reading. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

F [8, 904] = 12.398, p < .001, partial η2 = .099). There was a significant effect of writ-
ing competence groups on mining reading (F [2, 455] = 33.247 p < .001, partial η2 =
.128), recalling while writing (F [2, 455] = 39.596, p < .001, partial η2 = .148), cogni-
tive strategies (F [2, 455] = 42.484, p < .001, partial η2 = .157), and peer revision read-
ing (F [2, 455] = 37.066, p < .001, partial η2 = .140). Post hoc comparisons using the
Scheffe test revealed that the high achievers reported significantly higher mean scores on
SR-R2W strategy use than the average achievers (p < .001), who in turn outperformed
the low achievers (p < .001). Figure 2 presents the mean differences in SR-R2W strategy
use among the high, average, and low achievers.

V Discussion
In the present study, a framework of self-regulated R2W has been proposed. Various
SR-R2W strategies were identified based on the literature. The study also developed an
SR-R2W scale to measure the students’ SR-R2W strategy use in English writing. The
results showed that SR-R2W strategy use was positively related to the motivational vari-
ables and was also a positive contributor to writing competence. The present work is the
first step not only to build and test a proposed theoretical framework that sheds light on
the self-regulated R2W process, but also to demonstrate the effectiveness of SR-R2W
strategies on writing competence in an ESL/EFL school context. The SR-R2W scale and
our findings are both theoretically and practically significant.
In the present study, we proposed a self-regulated R2W framework that describes a
process in which students read extensively, consciously acquire linguistic, rhetorical, and
discourse knowledge as input for writing, and then recall the information accumulated in
reading to serve as a basis in the writing process (i.e. planning, text-generating and revis-
ing). The self-regulated R2W process is self-initiated and goal-directed. That is,
18 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

4.50
p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001
4.00 3.81 3.82 3.84
3.73
3.50
3.25 3.27 3.22
3.09
3.00 2.89 2.84
2.73 2.70
2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
Mining reading Recalling while writing Cogntive strategies Peer revision reading
Low achievers Average achievers High achievers

Figure 2.  Mean differences in self-regulated read-to-write strategy use among high, average,
and low achievers.

self-regulated learners actively search for and read texts that contribute to their writing
based on their own needs rather than passively relying on teachers’ guidance. Moreover,
self-regulated R2W is a strategic process that involves the use of multiple strategies. This
study also developed an instrument to measure four types of SR-R2W strategies. The
four-factor model had an acceptable model fit and was better than the one-factor model.
Thus, scores of the four subscales can be calculated separately to reflect students’ use of
each of the four types of strategies. Meanwhile, the higher order four-factor model also
had an acceptable model fit, indicating that SR-R2W is an integrated construct that
requires the use of a range of SR-R2W strategies in relation to the reading process and
writing process. The positive relations between the four types of strategies suggest that
the strategy types are distinct but work together in the SR-R2W process.
The most important finding of this study was that differences between the students of
different writing competence levels in SR-R2W strategy use were identified. Self-
regulated R2W strategy use was positively related to writing competence. Researchers
have proposed that reading and writing have connections (Belcher & Hirvela, 2001;
Hirvela, 2013), and students may learn different aspects of writing and improve writing
competence from reading (Hirvela, 2013; Weigle & Parker, 2012). Our study provided
direct empirical evidence that SR-R2W is a positive predictor of writing competence.
Mining reading measured the students’ reading and acquiring information in terms of
ideation, lexicons, rhetorical structures, and conventions. The results showed that mining
reading contributed to writing competence. Intimately related with mining reading, the
students’ recalling while writing was also found to be a positive predictor of writing
competence. The benefit of these two types of strategies is supported by empirical stud-
ies that found students’ improvements in ideation, vocabulary learning and rhetorical
patterns from reading (Li & Schmitt, 2009; Sengupta, 1999). Further, cognitive strate-
gies that target information processing directly were found to have positive impacts,
Bai and Wang 19

which is in line with previous studies that showed a positive role of cognitive strategies
(Boekaerts, 1996; Pintrich et al., 1991). Cognitive strategies, i.e. rehearsal strategies,
elaboration strategies, and organizational strategies can be used by students to remember,
understand, and learn the reading materials (Boekaerts, 1996; Flavell, 1979). Peer revi-
sion reading was also found to contribute to writing competence. Students can exchange
and revise classmates’ writing, in which they highlight the problems and offer sugges-
tions for revision (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Nelson & Schunn, 2009). Importantly,
students’ evaluation of others’ writing also helps improve their own writing (Lundstrom
& Baker, 2009; Wooley et al., 2008). Students learn to take readers into consideration
and learn the standard of a good composition in peer revision reading, which can contrib-
ute to their own writing (Lee & Evans, 2019; Yu & Lee, 2016). Our findings provide
evidence to show that the more SR-R2W strategies students use, the better writing com-
petence they may achieve.
It is important to highlight that the mining reading subscale (13 items) and recalling
while writing subscale (11 items) include more items than the cognitive strategies sub-
scale (4 items) and peer revision reading subscale (4 items), which reflects the nature of
the participants’ self-regulated R2W process. First, mining reading is considered a very
heavy part of reading-to-write according to Hirvela (2004, 2013), on which the present
framework is based. In addition, our empirical study has conceptualized mining reading
to have four aspects that are related to vocabulary (e.g. nouns, adjectives, and verbs, 3
items), organization (e.g. connections and idea sequence, 3 items), content (e.g. charac-
ters, setting, and events, 4 items), and conventions (e.g. grammar use, spelling, punctua-
tion and capitalization, 3 items). Correspondingly, the recalling while writing subscale
consists of the specific textual features which match the four aspects in mining reading.
Primary school students in ESL/EFL contexts pay a great deal of attention to the different
aspects of mining reading and recalling while writing in their SR-R2W process with the
texts that they are exposed to in reading (for the purpose of writing) and subsequently
their own writing, e.g. stories and expositions (see CDC, 2017) . On the other hand, there
were relatively fewer items in cognitive strategies and peer revision reading. Although
these two subscales are also useful strategies that students can deploy to enhance their
writing from reading, these two types of strategies may not be their major foci in their
SR-R2W process. Of course, future research may explore if there are other items that
should be included in these two subscales that suit other contexts and participants.
Although the present study showed that the four types of SR-R2W strategies contrib-
uted to the students’ writing competence, it has not looked into the underlying mecha-
nisms by which the different types of strategies may enhance what aspects of writing. For
example, peer revision reading may play a relatively more important role in editing and
revising, which improves the conventions and rhetorical structures. Cognitive strategies,
which involve organization and elaboration, may be essential for ideation. Moreover,
when students are aware of benefits of reading for writing, they may exert more efforts
to strategically access and learn textual elements (i.e. content, rhetorical features, and
conventions) in reading, which in turn improves their writing competence.
The next important finding is that the motivational variables, i.e. reading and writing
self-efficacy, perceived utility and interest in writing, were positively related to SR-R2W
strategy use. Similar to Lee, Yu and Liu’s (2018) study on ESL secondary school
20 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

students in Hong Kong, motivation was found to be a positive factor for R2W in the
present study. Theorists have stressed the important role of motivation in self-regulated
learning (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). For example, Bai and Guo (2019) and Bai et al.
(2020) showed that self-efficacy and task values (i.e. interest and utility) contributed to
Hong Kong primary students’ self-regulated writing strategy use and writing perfor-
mance. Our finding echoes the importance of motivation as a crucial component in
self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 2003; Zimmerman, 1989). This study showed that
motivational variables also contributed to SR-R2W strategy use. This finding has prac-
tical implications for optimizing students’ adaptive motivation so as to promote their
SR-R2W strategy use.

1 Practical implications
This study suggests new approaches to improving writing competence by promoting
students’ use of SR-R2W strategies, which holds implications for school curriculums and
teachers. Researchers have pointed out that self-regulated learning is influenced by envi-
ronmental sources (Zimmerman, 1989; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). According to
social cognitive theory, self-regulated learning is developed by observation of an expert
model, encouragement from teachers, and enactive outcomes. A powerful learning envi-
ronment should provide students with strategic knowledge, model strategy use, and offer
materials and activities to develop strategic learners.
First, students should be provided with diversified, interesting, and reasonably challeng-
ing reading materials. Various texts and articles in different domains should be offered to
facilitate students’ learning from others’ texts of various genres, e.g. magazines/newspapers
for persuasive writing, fictions for personal narrative writing, and scientific reports for aca-
demic writing. Second, ESL/EFL teachers should encourage students to search for and
select reading materials that meet their personal needs to support their writing according to
the proposed self-regulated R2W framework in the present study. Teachers need to encour-
age students to shift from relying on teachers for analysis of reading materials, to indepen-
dently analyzing and evaluating texts by themselves. Third, students should be offered
sufficient time to pace their own reading and writing.
On the other hand, school curriculums should include self-regulated R2W as an
important teaching objective. Students should be provided with explicit and systematic
instruction on SR-R2W strategy use. Typically, self-regulated reading strategies and
writing strategies are included as separate teaching objectives in school English curricu-
lums in ESL/EFL contexts. Teachers should understand the important role of self-regu-
lated R2W in their students’ learning to write in English. Given that teachers may not be
familiar with self-regulated R2W, schools can provide professional development pro-
grams that introduce self-regulated R2W to teachers. After raising teachers’ awareness
on self-regulated R2W, it is important that ESL/EFL teachers specifically teach SR-R2W
strategies included in this study and those they find effective. Teachers should help stu-
dents become aware of what the strategies are, and when, how and why these strategies
should be used. Another important issue is that students should understand how self-
regulated R2W strategies may contribute to their writing competence.
Bai and Wang 21

2 Limitations and future directions

A number of limitations of this study merit consideration. First, although the sample size
was not small, the findings of this study were limited to primary school students. Future
research needs to test whether the positive impacts of self-regulated R2W can be general-
ized to older students. It is possible that the effects of self-regulated R2W vary among
different age groups. Given that younger writers tend to face more fundamental linguistic
problems (Li & Schmitt, 2009), self-regulated R2W may play an especially crucial role
for beginning writers, and its impacts decrease with time as older students may have
fewer linguistic problems.
Second, we mapped out six possible types of SR-R2W strategies. However, the
SR-R2W scale was developed only focusing on four of them. It is necessary to develop
a measurement to include the two remaining subscales as well and examine their impacts
on writing competence. Therefore, we encourage researchers to investigate how the six
types of strategies proposed in our SR-R2W framework may function in their contexts
and participants. Future research is also needed to find out if there are more self-regu-
lated R2W strategies under cognitive strategies and peer revision reading and/or other
types of strategies besides the four types in the present study. In other words, our pro-
posed framework and scale can be adjusted to suit other contexts and participants. Both
students and experienced teachers can be interviewed to identify self-regulated R2W
strategies that may help students write better.
Another worthwhile direction for further research would be to examine the magnitude
of the effects of self-regulated R2W, in contrast to a combination of SR-R2W strategies
and self-regulated writing strategies, and merely self-regulated writing strategies. Existing
studies have identified the positive impacts of self-regulated writing strategies on writing
competence (Bai, 2015; Victori, 1999). The combination of self-regulated R2W and self-
regulated writing strategies may explain more variance in writing competence than one
category of strategies alone. It is very likely that self-regulated R2W and self-regulated
writing strategies work in compensatory ways to influence writing competence, with the
former contributing to lower functions (e.g. vocabulary and conventions) and the latter on
a higher level (e.g. planning, monitoring, and revising) (Crinon & Legros, 2002).

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iDs
Barry Bai https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2124-5061
Jing Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9262-5133

References
Alqadi, K.R., & Alqadi, H. (2013). The effect of extensive reading on developing the grammatical
accuracy of the EFL freshmen at Al Al-Bayt University. Journal of Education and Practice,
4, 106–113.
22 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Andrade, M.S. (2013). Principles and practices for response in second language writing:
Developing self-regulated learners. New York: Routledge.
Bai, B. (2015). An intervention study of writing strategies in Singapore primary schools. System,
53, 96–106.
Bai, B. (2018). Understanding primary school students’ use of self-regulated writing strategies
through think-aloud protocols. System, 78, 15–26.
Bai, B., & Guo, W. (2019). Motivation and self-regulated strategy use: Relationships to primary
school students’ English writing in Hong Kong. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead
of print 4 July 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1362168819859921.
Bai, B., Wang, J., & Nie, Y.Y. (2020). Self-efficacy, task values, and growth mindset: What has
the most predictive power for primary school students’ self-regulated learning in English
writing and writing competence in an Asian Confucian cultural context? Cambridge Journal
of Education. Epub ahead of print 1 July 2020. DOI: 10.1080/0305764X.2020.1778639.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Belcher, D.D., & Hirvela, A. (2001). Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading–writing con-
nections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation.
European Psychologist, 1, 100–112.
Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D.F., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining
Dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 25–38.
Brunstein, J.C., & Glaser, C. (2011). Testing a path-analytic mediation model of how self-regu-
lated writing strategies improve fourth graders' composition skills: A randomized controlled
trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 922–938.
Carson, J., & Leki, I. (1993). Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspec-
tives. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Charney, D.H., & Carlson, R.A. (1995). Learning to write in a genre: What student writers take
from model texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 88–125.
Chen, M.-L. (2009). Influence of grade level on perceptual learning style preferences and lan-
guage learning strategies of Taiwanese English as a foreign language learners. Learning and
Individual Differences, 19, 304–308.
Coyle, Y., CáNovas Guirao, J., & Roca de Larios, J. (2018). Identifying the trajectories of young
EFL learners across multi-stage writing and feedback processing tasks with model texts.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 25–43.
Crinon, J., & Legros, D. (2002). The semantic effects of consulting a textual database on rewriting.
Learning and Instruction, 12, 605–626.
Curriculum Development Council. (2017). English language education: Key learning area cur-
riculum guide (Primary 1 – Secondary 6). Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Dockrell, J.E., Marshall, C.R., & Wyse, D. (2016). Teachers’ reported practices for teaching writ-
ing in England. Reading and Writing, 29, 409–434.
Doubet, K.J., & Southall, G. (2018). Integrating reading and writing instruction in middle and high
School: The role of professional development in shaping teacher perceptions and practices.
Literacy Research and Instruction, 57, 59–79.
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development.
Educational Psychologist, 35, 39–50.
Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–develop-
mental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Flavell, J.H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In Dickson, P. (Ed.), Children's oral communication
skills (pp. 35–60). New York: Academic Press.
Bai and Wang 23

Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and
Communication, 32, 365–387.
Flower, L., Stein, V., & Ackerman, J., et al. (1990). Reading to write: Exploring a cognitive and
social process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gallagher, K. (2011). Write like this: Teaching real-world writing through modeling and mentor
texts. Portland: Stenhouse.
Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2016). Source-based tasks in academic writing assessment: Lexical
diversity, textual borrowing and proficiency. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24,
78–88.
Grabe, W. (2001). Reading–writing relations: Theoretical perspectives and instructional practices.
In Belcher, D.D., & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading–writing
connections (pp. 15–47). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Graham, S., Harris, K.R., MacArthur, C., & Santangelo, T. (2018). Self-regulation and writing.
In Schunk, D.H., & J.A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and perfor-
mance (pp. 138–152). 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
Graham, S., Bruch, J., & Fitzgerald, J., et al. (2016). Teaching secondary students to write effec-
tively. Washington, DC: IES.
Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous
attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 459–479.
Harrison, G.L., Goegan, L.D., & Jalbert, R., et al. (2016). Predictors of spelling and writing skills
in first- and second-language learners. Reading & Writing, 29, 69–89.
Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hirvela, A. (2013). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. 2nd
edition. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hu, J., & Gao, X. (2018). Self-regulated strategic writing for academic studies in an English-
medium-instruction context. Language and Education, 32, 1–20.
Kent, S.C., & Wanzek, J. (2016). The relationship between component skills and writing quality
and production across developmental levels: A meta-analysis of the last 25 years. Review of
Educational Research, 86, 570–601.
Lee, M.K., & Evans, M. (2019). Investigating the operating mechanisms of the sources of L2
writing self-efficacy at the stages of giving and receiving peer feedback. Modern Language
Journal, 103, 831–847.
Lee, I., Yu, S., & Liu, Y. (2018). Hong Kong Secondary Students’ Motivation in EFL Writing: A
Survey Study. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 176–187.
Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2009). The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: A longitudinal
case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 85–102.
Limpo, T., & Alves, R.A. (2013). Teaching planning or sentence-combining strategies: Effective
SRSD interventions at different levels of written composition. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 38, 328–341.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review
to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.
Mayo, M.F.G., & Labandibar, U. (2017). The use of models as written corrective feedback in
English as a foreign language (EFL) writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 110–
127.
Muñoz, C. (2017). Tracing trajectories of young learners: Ten years of school English learning.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 168–184.
Nelson, M.M., & Schunn, C. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback
affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37, 375–401.
24 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Nikolov, M., & Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (2011). All shades of every color: An overview of early
teaching and learning of Foreign Languages. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 95–
119.
Pally, M. (1997). Critical thinking in ESL: An argument for sustained content. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 6, 293–311.
Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P.R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of
cognitive and motivational factors. In Eccles, A.W.S. (Ed.), Development of achievement
motivation (pp. 249–284). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of English
for Academic Purposes, 8, 252–266.
Riazi, M., Shi, L., & Haggerty, J. (2018). Analysis of the empirical research in the journal of
second language writing at its 25th year (1992–2016). Journal of Second Language Writing,
41, 41–54.
Schoonen, R. (2019). Are reading and writing building on the same skills? The relationship
between reading and writing in L1 and EFL. Reading and Writing, 32, 511–535.
Sengupta, S. (1999). Rhetorical consciousness raising in the L2 reading classroom. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 8, 291–319.
Shanahan, T. (2016). Relationships between reading and writing development. In MacArthur,
C.A., Graham, S., & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 194–207). New
York: Guilford Press.
Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R.G. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the
reading–writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 116–123.
Tsang, W.-K. (1996). Comparing the effects of reading and writing on writing performance.
Applied Linguistics, 17, 210–233.
Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of two
effective and two less effective writers. System, 27, 537–555.
Wang, C., & Bai, B. (2017). Validating the instruments to measure ESL/EFL learners' self-efficacy
beliefs and self-regulated learning strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 931–947.
Weigle, S.C., & Parker, K. (2012). Source text borrowing in an integrated reading/writing assess-
ment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 118–133.
Wooley, R., Was, C., Schunn, C.D., & Dalton, D. (2008). The effects of feedback elaboration on
the giver of feedback. Paper presented at the In 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science
Society. Washington, DC, USA.
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language
Teaching, 49, 461–493.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.
Educational Psychologist, 25, 3–17.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive
perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Pons, M.M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing
student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal,
23, 614–628.