Self-Modeling and Self-Regulated Strategy Instruction for Writing

Running head: SELF-MODELING & SELF-REGULATED STRATEGY INSTRUCTION !1

Self-Modeling & Self-Regulated Strategy Instruction for Writing

Susan Voelker

A Literature Review

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the

Master of Science in Education Degree

In

Childhood Education

Hunter College

SELF-MODELING & SELF-REGULATED STRATEGY INSTRUCTION !2

Abstract

Self-regulated writing strategy instruction has been utilized for decades to improve students’ per-

formance and self-beliefs about writing ability. Video self-modeling (VSM) has also been used

for decades as an evidence-based intervention to rapidly improve behaviors and skills. The pur-

pose of this review is to analyze published studies and contemporary research to determine the

effects of VSM interventions used in tandem with self-regulated writing strategy instruction on

students’ writing quality and self-efficacy beliefs. Based on the results of studies on the sources

of academic self-efficacy, writing strategy instruction, and VSM for literacy skills, this pairing of

interventions shows promise for improving students’ writing quality, speed of skill-acquisition,

and self-beliefs about writing ability.


Findings from the 2012 National Association of Educational Progress (NAEP) Report on

the state of writing performance of fourth grade students nationwide showed that 48% of study

participants were considered low to marginal in their ability to express and organize developed

ideas, convey purpose and target a specific audience with their writing (NAEP, 2012). The impli-

cations of this NAEP study were further illuminated by the findings of the most recent NAEP

Nation’s Report Card on Writing (2011) that 24% of eighth and twelfth-grade students were writ-

ing at the proficient level and 20% of students were writing at “below basic” skill levels (NAEP,

2011).

Consequently, teachers may not be prepared to meet the instructional needs of their stu-

dent writers. A national survey of elementary teachers in grades 4-6 from across the United

States conducted by Gilbert & Graham (2010) indicated that nearly two-thirds of teachers report-

ed that their teacher education courses provided them with little preparation to teach writing.

Furthermore, teachers reported that their current writing instruction typically lasted only 15 min-

utes per day, with students writing texts of paragraph length or longer for around 25 minutes per

day. Additionally, teachers reported using evidence-based instructional writing practices infre-

quently (Gilbert & Graham, 2010).

The findings point to the urgency that exists for effective writing instruction and interven-

tions in the classroom throughout the country. Future research is needed to determine the fastest

and most effective ways to improve students’ writing skills, especially in light of the rigorous

expectations of the Common Core State Standards. As students transition into upper elementary

school grades, the impetus rests on each individual to produce grade-appropriate academic writ-

ing. It is crucial that students be intrinsically motivated and internalize writing strategies to guide


them through increasingly demanding challenges. Findings point to students’ additional need for

positive self-perceptions of their ability in order to accomplish the tasks and meet the challenges

ahead (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy, an essential motivator, has been found to correlate with

strategy use (Harris & Graham, 1996) perhaps because, the more tools that students have to ac-

complish tasks, the more confidence students feel about their abilities to reach goals.

Theoretical Framework

Bandura (1997) posited that self-efficacy, goal setting, and planning are essential attribut-

es of self-regulation. Additionally, social-cognitive theory claimed that implementing effective

learning strategies and progress monitoring are behaviors of a self-regulated learner (Zimmer-

man & Schunk, 2008). Self-efficacy belief, in particular, was considered paramount to social

cognitive theory because self-perceptions contribute to future action. Bandura’s (1997) social-

cognitive theory argued that future events are conceived cognitively and act as motivators in the

present, regulating our behavior. Bandura (1997) attributes human behavior to a combination of

self-generated and external influences. Consequently, sources of self-efficacy belief are internal

and external. According to Bandura (1997), the four sources that contribute to self-efficacy are:

experience of previous mastery, vicarious or modeled experience, praise or persuasive judge-

ments from others, and one’s own physiological or emotional state. Reflective of the self-gener-

ating conceptions that form the foundation of social cognitive theory, one’s perception of past

mastery is theorized to have the most influence on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). In the context

of writing, one’s perceptions of previous successes or failures within the domain are considered

crucial to one’s motivation to write, to learn new strategies, overcome challenges and eventually

improve the quality of one’s writing.


“Students’ use of learning strategies—and their continued use of them in the face

of difficulty—is based on the beliefs that these strategies are necessary for learning, and that they

are effective ways of overcoming obstacles” (Dweck & Master, 2008). A self-regulated learner

sees a challenge as an opportunity to put learning strategies to use. There are multiple compo-

nents to a teacher’s role in assisting a student to become a self-regulated writer. Not only do edu-

cators instruct students in learning strategies, but teachers play a role in boosting students’ beliefs

in their competence as writers. Furthermore, researchers have suggested that a student’s belief in

one’s own writing ability is instrumental to the utilization of strategies and writing success (Pa-

jares, Johnson & Usher, 2007). This self-efficacy incentivizes students to execute a course of ac-

tion based on the belief that they will achieve their desired outcome (Bandura, 1986).

To benefit from learning strategies, however, a learner must possess a malleable theory of

ability (Dweck & Master, 2008). Inherent theory claimed that self-regulated strategy acquisition

is dependent on an incremental, rather than fixed, view of one’s ability or intelligence. A student

must believe that self-regulation strategies, such as goal setting and planning, will help them im-

prove as a writer. An entity theorist, in contrast, would see no reason to self-regulate because one

either can or can not accomplish a task based on native ability (Dweck & Master, 2008). Accord-

ing to inherent theory, a student with an incremental theory of ability would attribute self-effica-

cy with effort and be more likely to incentivize self-regulated strategies (Dweck & Master,

2008).

While inherent theory focused on the cognitive climate necessary for self-regulated learn-

ing to occur, self-model theory considered self-efficacy as the mechanism by which the brain

discerns which information to learn (Dowrick, 2012a). Self-model theory posited that Bandura’s


(1997) mental conceptions of future events can be more accurately described as cognitive self-

model simulations of future behavior, and are the result of cognitive and neurological responses

occurring naturally and automatically. When one observes a skill or behavior that is deemed

valuable, mirror neurons essentially imitate the behavior to create a mental simulation of oneself

engaged in the observed behavior (Dowrick, 2012a). It is theorized that one’s self-efficacy de-

termines the value of the skill to an individual and one’s capacity for skill acquisition (Dowrick,

2012a). Dowrick (2012a) claimed that the automatic imitation described occurs when watching

anyone demonstrate a skill, however, it has been found to be more accurate and lead to rapid skill

acquisition when a successful (video) demonstration of oneself was observed.

Dowrick's (2012a) theory and significant findings from academic applications of video

self-modeling (VSM) (Hitchcock, Prater & Dowrick, 2004; Delano, 2007; Dowrick, Kim-Rup-

now & Power, 2006; Marcus & Wilder, 2009; Robson, Blampied & Walker, 2015) validate a

need for further research on the effects of video self-modeling to aid in students’ writing skill

acquisition and self-efficacy. Self-model theory considers self-efficacy a crucial cognitive re-

sponse to stimuli, discerning what information is of value to the brain (Dowrick, 2012a). Addi-

tionally, the act of viewing successful self-models provides an individual with mastery experi-

ences, which findings indicated are the most influential sources of writing self-efficacy (Pajares

et al., 2007).

Self-efficacy theory, a crucial component of social cognitive theory, is integral to the the-

oretical framework of this review. Numerous findings from the outlined studies point to the so-

cial and cognitive influences on quality writing and skill-acquisition (Pajares et al., 2007, Brun-

stein & Glaser, 2011). Additionally, the theoretical framework incorporates motivational and


neuropsychological theories of human behavior, further illuminating the range of processes that

the brain undertakes before, during and after the act of writing. With consideration to the motiva-

tional, cognitive, neuropsychological and social influences that contribute to one’s acquisition of

writing skills and self-perceptions about writing ability, questions for research include:

1. Which evidence-based method of writing instruction is most effective for improving writing

quality and self-efficacy beliefs of students in upper elementary grades?

2. What effect does self-modeling of writing strategies have on the quality of writing and self-

efficacy beliefs of struggling young writers?

Cognition and Writing

Flower & Hayes (1980) described a writer engaged in the act of writing as “a thinker on a

full-time cognitive overload” (p. 33). Their study of the cognitive actions that the mind under-

takes when writing led to the creation of a model process for successful writing. Consequently,

the proposed model has had a powerful impact on the creation of research-based writing strate-

gies (Graham, 2006). Graham & Harris (1996) listed common challenges to writing as (a) not

knowing what constitutes good writing, (b) an ineffective practice to writing, (c) neglecting to

plan prior to writing, (d) content generation difficulty, (e) neglecting to make revisions, (f) diffi-

culty transcribing text, (g) lack of persistence, and (h) unrealistic self-efficacy belief. In contrast,

a skilled writer is acquainted with the characteristics and conventions of writing. Therefore, in

order to improve writing quality, research supports the necessity to target instruction at engaging

the cognitive actions necessary to accomplish the effortful task of sophisticated writing.

Cognitive-oriented approaches to writing instruction focus on ways to modify writing

behavior through structuring the environment, goal setting and establishing routines for students


so that they can reliably follow steps such as planning, revising and editing their work (Graham

& Harris, 1996). Another way students are taught to increase the sophistication of their writing is

through explicit instruction in the independent use of organizational writing strategies such as

planning or revising. In Graham, McKeown, Kiuhara & Harris’s (2012) meta-analysis of writing

instruction, 20 studies of explicit writing strategy instruction indicated positive effect on the

quality of student writing for students in grades 2 - 6. One-half of the studies were conducted

with the full range of students in regular classrooms (Graham, McKeown, Kiuhara & Harris,

2012). Notably, 16 of the studies involved the use of self-regulated strategy development (SRSD)

(Graham & Harris, 1996).

The distinction between writing strategy instruction and self-regulated strategy instruc-

tion is significant. In the context of the instructional approach to writing, self-regulation refers to

the acts of assessing one’s self, managing one’s environment and setting goals for one’s self

(Santangelo, Harris & Graham, 2008). Self-regulation strategies give students the tools necessary

to successfully navigate and persist in the acquisition and utilization of writing strategies. As a

result, findings support the advantageous addition of self-regulation strategy instruction to future

research on writing strategy instruction.

Self-regulated strategy instruction

Improving the quality of one’s writing is an effortful and gradual process, and choosing

the most effective way to deliver instruction in writing poses a challenge for many teachers.

Cognitive-oriented approaches in particular, which include the establishment of writing routines

and explicit instruction in organizational writing strategies, have been found efficacious to the

improvement of students’ writing sophistication (Graham & Harris, 1996). Furthermore, writing


strategy instruction, in tandem with self-regulated learning strategies, has been investigated as a

crucial component of effective writing instruction in studies including Limpo & Alves (2014),

Brunstein & Glaser (2011), and research presented by Santangelo et al. (2008).

The cognitive and social theoretical framework that Santangelo et al. (2008) outlined for

SRSD, an instructional writing strategy approach, is employed in the studies of both Limpo &

Alves (2014) and Brunstein & Glaser (2011). Cognitive theories (Meichenbaum, 1977) in-

formed the stages of SRSD instruction, based on the way in which the mind operates when writ-

ing, from developing background knowledge to planning and idea generation, through the revi-

sion process. Social theories on self-control and skill development by Vygotsky and Sokolov

contributed the concepts of modeling behavior and self-regulation (Santangelo et al., 2008).

Brunstein & Glaser (2011) relied on the same theoretical framework Santangelo et al. (2008) de-

scribed to identify the causal mediators that potentially account for the increased efficaciousness

of self-regulated learning in conjunction with writing strategy instruction. Extending the theoret-

ical framework to include motivational theory, Limpo & Alves’ (2014) study additionally relied

on implicit theory to correlate one’s belief in their ability to improve as a writer over time with

one’s demonstrated improvement in writing quality. Limpo & Alves’ (2014) research confirmed

Dweck & Master ’s (2008) theory that incremental views of ability positively correlated with im-

proved self-efficacy and self-regulated strategy acquisition. The findings supported the theory

that if an individual believes one can improve as a writer, one will be receptive to assimilating

self-regulated strategies.

Santangelo et al. (2008) described the way in which self-regulated learning in conjunc-

tion with writing strategies helps to simplify and organize complex tasks and defines a course of


action for writing, including concretizing the mental operations that occur during writing through

a six stage process of instruction. The stages of instruction implemented using the SRSD ap-

proach are reflective of cognitive actions attributed to quality writing and include (1) the devel-

opment of background knowledge, (2) discussions about successful genre-specific and general

writing, (3) modeling writing and self-regulation strategies, (4) memorization of strategies, (5)

support or guided practice with student, (6) and independent performance by the student

(Santangelo et al., 2008). The journal article further elaborated on the importance of teachers’

roles in monitoring and evaluating, continually and multi-dimensionally, the success of SRSD

intervention. SRSD should not be considered a “Panacea” (Santangelo et al., 2008, p. 87), how-

ever, for all of student’s writing skill needs nor will it necessarily be the ideal writing approach

for all students. SRSD is, however, a research-validated instructional method correlated with sig-

nificant improvements in writing quality across genres for students in the pivotal fourth, fifth and

sixth-grades.

Limpo & Alves (2014), for instance, found that adding self-regulated strategy instruction

to writing instruction resulted in improvements to students’ writing quality and length of writing.

The quasi-experiment compared an experimental group of 109 fifth and sixth-grade students re-

ceiving SRSD writing instruction to a control group of 83 students from the same class receiving

exclusively writing strategy instruction. All students were native language speakers from general

education classes at a public school in Portugal. Over a 12-week period, students in the control

group received 45-90 minutes per week of writing instruction in grammar followed by indepen-

dent writing tasks with minimal planning instruction. All instruction was conducted by two expe-

rienced classroom teachers who attended an eight hour pre-intervention workshop and weekly


meetings with the authors during the intervention to discuss previous lessons and upcoming les-

son plans. Data was collected from a pre-test, mid-test and post-test, consisting of opinion es-

says, for all students. Students receiving SRSD instruction received twelve 90-min weekly

lessons in writing instruction on opinion essay writing with self-regulating planning and memo-

rization strategies prescribed by the SRSD model. Students were taught the genre-specific Por-

tuguese adaptation of the SRSD mnemonic TREE (Write a Topic sentence, give three or more

Reasons, Explain and expound upon your reasons, and End with a conclusion that wraps up your

opinion). Self-regulated strategies were taught simultaneously including goal setting, self-moni-

toring and self-instruction. SRSD practices included in the writing and self-regulation strategy

instruction ranged from modeling of planning to discussion and explicit instruction. Teacher sup-

port and guidance materials gradually faded throughout the study replaced by independent prac-

tice of strategies by students.

As hypothesized, findings showed that students receiving the SRSD writing intervention

wrote longer and qualitatively better than students in the control group. Furthermore, Dweck &

Master’s (2008) implicit theory of self-regulation was confirmed with findings that indicated a

positive correlation between students that conceived writing as a skill that could be developed

and improvement in quality of writing from pre-test to post-test. Findings were statistically sig-

nificant that students who believed their writing could improve demonstrated increased idea

quality, coherence, syntax, and vocabulary.

Limitations of the study included the brief 12-week period and only three testing in-

stances in which to collect data. Further research is called for that includes longer intervention

time and more data points. Additionally, Limpo & Alves (2014) correlated the motivational as-


pect of incremental theory of writing ability with improved quality, however, their study pro-

duced results limited to opinion writing and excluded students receiving special education ser-

vices. These students are integral to the common urban inclusive classroom environment.

Similarly, Brunstein & Glaser (2011) measured the effect on writing quality of SRSD in-

struction with 117 fourth-grade students. The group consisted of students with mixed writing

abilities, however, any students with a special education designation were removed from the ex-

perimental group. Though the randomized, controlled trial group lacked diversity, (96% identi-

fied as caucasian) findings were significant at post-test and maintenance that students receiving

writing strategy plus self-regulation (SRSD) expressed (a) higher writing self-efficacy, (b) dis-

played greater knowledge of what constitutes good writing, (c) planned more completely, (d)

made more substantive revisions, and (e) wrote stories of higher quality than students receiving

only writing strategy instruction.

The focus of Brunstein & Glaser’s (2011) trial was on story construction. Writing strategy

instruction, delivered to both groups, was broken up into stages of planning, writing and revising

with a focus on students improving organization and learning genre-specific strategies. Another

research question Brunstein & Glaser (2011) investigated was whether a causal chain of mediat-

ing variables could be identified to explain the efficaciousness of including self-regulation

strategies with writing instruction. They hypothesized and found evidence that improved quality,

based on (a) writing content, (b) structure and (c) stylistic features, from self-regulated writing

strategies can be attributed to a causal chain. The posed model of causality consisted of (a) si-

multaneous strategy-related knowledge and writing self-efficacy, (b) followed by pre-writing

planning and (c) text revision. Self-regulation practices were found to improve all of the latter


variables. The research further found that all other mediators in the proposed path were contin-

gent on the pre-planning variable. This finding supports the idea that good writing is contingent

on careful planning (Brunstein & Glaser, 2011). The motivation behind this path-analysis comes

from theory posed by Judd & Kenny (1981) which argued that analysis of effective intervention

should utilize a mediational process to potentially provide information about how the interven-

tion works. By dissecting the cognitive process that takes place during SRSD instruction, the

study found that planning is the most crucial stage of the intervention for improving writing

quality, potentially explaining why self-regulation strategies, of which planning is a key strategy,

make writing instruction more effective.

While findings from Brunstein & Glaser (2011) and Limpo & Alves’ (2014) studies fo-

cused on the manner in which self-regulation strategy acquisition improves writing strategy ac-

quisition along with motivational factors, a limitation of both experiments was the lack of diver-

sity in the demographics. SRSD is an intervention with a social theoretical foundation and future

research is needed to determine whether self-regulated strategy instruction can be correlated with

significant writing strategy improvement in populations that reflect diverse urban classrooms.

Today’s urban inclusive classrooms are often populated by struggling writers with and without

special education accommodations and with diverse racial affiliations. Furthermore, future re-

search is needed on the motivational factors affected by SRSD interventions with diverse popula-

tions. Brunstein & Glaser (2011) described an underrepresentation of motivational mediators in

their proposed causal chain as a limitation of the experiment.

SRSD study findings have yielded significant data pointing to improved student self-effi-

cacy and writing sophistication. Evidence that students’ self-beliefs can be predictors of writing


quality (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994) supports the need for further research into the sources of

self-efficacy to facilitate educators in boosting students self-beliefs, and by extension, their writ-

ing sophistication.

Sources of writing self-efficacy

Research on motivational factors contributing to students’ writing quality have investi-

gated a number of aspects factoring into students’ self-beliefs. Early research on writing self-ef-

ficacy focused on surveying students self-beliefs in regards to mechanics of writing (McCarthy,

Meier, & Rinderer, 1985) and on correlation between outcome expectancy belief and writing

performance (Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989). Within the past two decades, focus has shifted

to the study of self-efficacy for self-regulation of writing activities such as planning, revising and

managing time ((Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994) as predictors of writing performance. Pajares et

al. (2007) confirmed Bandura’s theory on the hierarchy of sources of writing self-efficacy and

surveyed students’ self-efficacy beliefs in regards to composition skills such as paragraph writing

or crafting an introduction (Pajares et al., 2007). More recently, researchers have broken down

the mediating actions in the writing process that contribute to, or detract from, writing self-effi-

cacy (Bruning, Dempsey, Kauffman, Zumbrunn & McKim, 2013).

Bruning et al. (2013) dissected writing self-efficacy into what they theorize are three

classes of writing activities that contribute to one’s overall writing self-efficacy; (a) idea genera-

tion, (b) expression of writing conventions, and (c) self-regulation ability to make decisions and

evaluate writing. The model for writing self-efficacy proposed is based on four assumptions

made by the author which build on Zimmerman and Bandura’s (1994) study of self-efficacy for

self-regulation of writing tasks.


1. The first assumption about writing is that the act of writing relies on cognition and is

complex and taxing to the working memory of the writer. Writing, unlike conversation,

involves an unseen audience therefore providing much less support and also unlike

conversation, writing has a formalized structure.

2. One’s writing ability develops slowly over time and requires a writer’s ability to create

working cognitive, metacognitive and lingusitic procedures.

3. Writing experiences are particularly memorable because it is an extended effortful task,

so mastery experience and physiological experiences such as feeling anxiety leave lasting

impressions.

4. In addition to a writer’s sense of general writing self-efficacy, writers tend to organize

their beliefs of their abilities into subcategories of experiences that can be measured.

While Bruning et al.’s (2013) study advances research on writing self-efficacy and the

act of writing, educators need evidence-based methods to help improve their students’ perfor-

mance and self-conceptions and few studies have focused on ways to successfully boost students’

experience of mastery, the most influential source of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Schunk &

Zimmerman (2007) focused on modeling, a vicarious learning experience, and goal setting, an

influential self-regulating strategy to increase self-efficacy. Pajares et al. (2007) recommended

student self-evaluation and teacher feedback centered around students successes to boost stu-

dents’ mastery experiences, Additional empirical research is called for to establish strategies for

educators to promote students’ writing self-efficacy beliefs.

Strong correlations have been made between increased self-efficacy and improved quality

of writing through self-regulated strategy development instruction (Graham & Harris, 1996;


Brunstein & Glaser, 2011) The significant effects from SRSD experiments are promising in re-

spect to providing educators with explicit and systematic procedures that positively affect cogni-

tive and motivational outcomes for a struggling writer. The brain experiences many stimuli dur-

ing stages of writing and the depth of strategy-acquisition that students experience may be at-

tributable to more than exclusively cognitive and motivational factors. Neuropsychological fac-

tors, for instance those explored in self-model theory, require further investigation. Additionally,

research is necessary to compare the speed of strategy-acquisition between intervention methods.

With speed and depth of strategy acquisition in mind, it may be beneficial to investigate the use

of current technology, backed by substantiated research, to pursue new avenues of instructional

delivery.

Video self-modeling

Dowrick (2012a, 2012b) theorized that the brain more rapidly and accurately acquires a

new skill when presented with a self-model, than a model of another individual performing the

behavior, because of cognitive and neuropsychological factors. While there are numerous ways

to produce a self-model including mental simulations, role-play, and audio recording; video self-

modeling “has enabled us to sharpen, control, repeat, and make behavioral measurement of the

images, resulting in numerous examples of very rapid learning” (Dowrick, 2012b, pp. 36-37).

Video technology today is an affordable and accessible medium for self-modeling as tablets,

phones and/or computers that record video are ubiquitous in American classrooms. As a result,

VSM may provide an effective way for teachers to expose students to records of their own suc-

cess which will improve their self-conceptions and their skills. However, research has been lack-

ing on the academic applications of VSM interventions.


Prater, et al.’s (2011) review of literature on the academic applications of VSM empha-

sized the dearth of empirical studies on its application to academic skills. Within the 8 studies

included in their review, 5 studies provided findings on VSM interventions for literacy skills.

The findings were significant and necessitate future research on VSM interventions of reading

and writing skills. Furthermore, it is possible that the dearth of past research was due to lack of

access to affordable and easy-to-use technology, a limitation that is no longer as prevalent.

Empirical studies on VSM interventions of literacy skills have thus far investigated read-

ing fluency (Dowrick et al., 2006; Hitchcock et al., 2004; Robson et al., 2015) reading compre-

hension (Hitchcock et al., 2004; Robson et al., 2015), the identification and labeling of novel let-

ters (Marcus & Wilder, 2009) and SRSD strategies for improving persuasive writing skills. One

variable these studies shared in common was the use of “feedforward.” Feedforward, in contrast

to feedback, “captures individuals demonstrating successes they have not yet shown by combin-

ing component skills already in their repertoire or by transferring the context in which the indi-

viduals perform the behavior” (Prater, et al., 2011, p. 71). For example, editing out a student’s

decoding errors or pauses so that it appears the student is reading fluently would produce a feed-

forward video. A benefit of feedforward is that findings have pointed to rapid improvement of

the skill or behavior at work. Robson et al., (2015) listed advantages of rapid results from inter-

ventions including stress reduction for the student and educator and rapid reinforcement of the

behavior which strengthens it for future use.

Studies have also pointed to enhanced self-efficacy as a product of rapid skill-acquisition

(Bandura, 1977; Dowrick, Kim-Rupnow, & Power, 2006). Robson et al. (2015) found that the

majority of 6-9 year-old experiment participants exposed to feedforward VSM (FFVSM) report-


ed increased reading self-efficacy from pre-test to post-test after a two-week intervention period.

Furthermore, the study, of eleven struggling readers, all of whom read below grade level, found

that after six sessions that involved watching their own 1-2 minute edited self-model videos,

more than 70% of students showed significant gains to comprehension, accuracy and reading

fluency. A limitation of the study, however, was a lack of follow-up after several months to see if

gains were maintained over time.

Dowrick et al. (2006) and Hitchcock et al. (2004), in contrast, have found evidence of

skill-acquisition maintenance from FFVSM interventions of students’ reading comprehension

and fluency. Dowrick et al. (2006) found that 9 out of 10 first-grade students, at-risk for acad-

emic failure, showed significant improvements to oral reading fluency after viewing two-minute

clips of themselves reading fluently over a trial-period of two weeks. Students demonstrated

progress which reflected mid-stream rather than at-risk status upon completion of the two-week

experiment. Furthermore, maintenance evaluations at one and three-months, found that students

reached the same criterion. Similar findings on first-grade reading fluency improvement, in ad-

dition to comprehension, were reported by Hitchcock et al. (2004), over a 12-16 week trial peri-

od. Fluency for three students was found to have doubled after eight-weeks and quadrupled for

one student. Comprehension criteria was met as well and improvements to both variables were

maintained at one and six month evaluations. These findings, from each FFVSM reading inter-

vention study were significant, however, they were limited in their application to reading-specif-

ic academic skills.

While the findings from studies of FFVSM reading interventions (Dowrick et al., 2006,

Hitchock et al., 2004, Robson et al., 2015) did not directly implicate similar improvements to


writing skills, they did demonstrate the efficacy of VSM interventions on literacy skill-acquisi-

tion. A study conducted by Delano (2007), however, found that students participating in

FFVSM writing interventions demonstrated significant improvements in the quality of their per-

suasive essays. Three students, aged 13, 15 and 17, with diagnoses of Asperger’s Syndrome and

records of writing difficulty, self-modeled genre-specific SRSD strategies for persuasive essay

writing. After completing a baseline writing session to assess the number of words written and

functional essay elements included, each student created a video in one session with the experi-

menter to model a self-monitoring strategy. The session was followed by sessions in which the

students viewed their videos and wrote persuasively. The process was then repeated for a mne-

monic persuasive writing strategy. The students were prompted verbally and with a script about

the strategy and told to simulate the strategy for the camera. Videos were edited to remove

prompts and any evidence of the script, and students viewed their own feedforward videos prior

to each subsequent writing session (Delano, 2007).

Findings indicated that all three students demonstrated significant improvements to both

variables evaluated (Delano, 2007). Significant improvements to functional essay element and

word counts were maintained at a one-week week evaluation, however, the writing session eval-

uated three months following the final intervention did not produce significant findings. The

brevity of the study, though not specified, was cited by Delano as a possible reason for the lack

of strategy-maintenance achieved by the students.

Another limitation of the study was the small group of students involved and the lack of a

control group to determine whether students may have improved their writing skills to the same

degree without the variable of VSM. Delano’s (2007) findings outline an effective intervention


for three students diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome. Further research is needed to determine

whether VSM is an effective tool for struggling writers in general education classrooms and

whether VSM used with the SRSD writing intervention produces significantly higher effect sizes

than an SRSD writing intervention modeled to a student by an experimenter. Motivational factors

are additional variables for future research of VSM writing interventions. Further research is

needed to investigate student’s self-efficacy belief before and after the mastery experience of

watching FFVSM video of a research-based writing intervention.

Robson et al. (2015) found the enhanced self-efficacy beliefs and skill-acquisition at-

tained from the FFVSM interventions were significant enough to have made the recommendation

that not only teachers but parents should help children create their own video self-models. Fur-

thermore, the ease of use of smartphone, tablet and other portable digital technology makes it

possible for older children to film and edit their own footage (Robson et al., 2015). Significant

findings of past studies into literacy applications of FFVSM support Robson’s recommendations.

The accessibility of technology paired with significant findings to support rapid skill-acquisition

and increased self-efficacy beliefs necessitate further research into VSM interventions of evi-

dence-based writing instruction.

Conclusion

Overall, the findings of the featured studies in this review demonstrated that self-model-

ing of evidence-based literacy instruction can be effective for rapidly improving skill-acquisition

and self-efficacy beliefs. The findings indicated that a self-modeling intervention, such as

FFVSM, has promise for rapidly improving writing skills despite the limited research to date that

directly implicates these results. When used in tandem with evidence-based writing strategies,


that students can simulate and learn from video of their own instruction, FFVSM offers an af-

fordable and accessible tool for educators. Prater et al. (2011) lists advantages to the intervention

including (a) the permanence of video that students can view at home, during school breaks, and

with repetition; (b) students typical enjoyment in viewing themselves on video, a potentially

strong motivator to participate; (c) especially among students in upper elementary and older, stu-

dents can be trained to video and edit for themselves and others; (d) videos create a permanent

record for parents and teachers to also view.

Many students today are savvy at using video technology. Prensky (2001) describes con-

temporary students as, “Native speakers of the digital language of computers, video games and

the Internet (p. 1).” Today’s academic resources and students’ capacities support the viability of

future research on the efficacy of FFVSM for writing skill acquisition. Prater et al.(2011) specifi-

cally recommended research into the use of VSM within the Response-to-Intervention (RTI)

model as a Tier 2 or 3 intervention, in particular because of the positive improvements to meet-

ing academic objectives that have been documented in relatively short periods of time.

While research into the academic applications of VSM intervention is limited, potentially

due to the lack of accessibility to technology in classrooms until recent years, research into the

efficacy of self-regulated writing strategy instruction has been substantiated by findings for

decades. Multiple meta-analyses of SRSD interventions (Graham, 2006; Graham et al., 2012)

have compiled significant data indicating gains to students’ writing performance of school-age

students across grade-level, race, academic need and behavioral demographics and spanning

writing genres.


The proven efficacy of SRSD interventions raises further questions for research into how

such evidence-based instructional writing practices can be more widely taught in teacher educa-

tion programs and implemented in schools in the United States (Gilbert & Graham, 2010). Addi-

tionally, further research is required to investigate whether an evidence-based instructional writ-

ing practice, when paired with VSM intervention, will produce rapid, lasting improvement to

students’ writing quality across genres, grade-levels and academic needs. The need for stronger

writing skills in U.S. schools is significant and students may benefit from the findings of re-

search on VSM for self-regulated writing strategy instruction.


References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Brunstein, J., & Glaser, C. (2011). Testing a path-analytic mediation model of how

self-regulated writing strategies improve fourth graders’ composition skills: A

randomized controlled trial. Journal of educational psychology,103, No. 4, 922–938

Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D. F., Zumbrunn, S., & McKim, C. (2013). Examining

dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of educational psychology, 105(1),

25-38.

Delano, M. E. (2007). Improving written language performance of adolescents with Asperger

Syndrome. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 40(2), 345-351.

Dowrick, P.W. (2012a) Self model theory: Learning from the future. WIRE’s cognitive science,

3:215–230. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1156

Dowrick, P. W. (2012b). Self modeling: Expanding the theories of learning. Psychology in the

schools, 49(1), 30-41.

Dowrick, P. W., Kim-Rupnow, W. S., & Power, T. J. (2006). Video feedforward for reading.

Journal of special education, 39, 194 – 207. doi:10.1177/00224669060390040101


Dweck, C.S., & Master, A. (2008). Self-theories motivate self-regulated learning. In

Schunk, Dale H. (Ed); Zimmerman, Barry J. (Ed), (2008). Motivation and self-regulated

learning: Theory, research and applications.31-51. New York, NY, US: Taylor &

Francis Group, LLC.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem.

College composition and communication, 31, 21–32. doi:10.2307/356630

Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4-6: A

national survey. Elementary school journal, 110(4), 494-518.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1996). Self regulation and strategy instruction for students who find

writing and learning challenging. In M. Levy and S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of

writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 347–360).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Graham, Steve. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In

Charles A. MacArthur, Steve Graham & Jill Fitzgerald (Eds.). Handbook of writing

research (pp.187-205). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing

instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of educational psychology,

104(4), 879-896.

Hitchcock, C., Prater,M. A.,& Dowrick, P.W. (2004). Reading comprehension and fluency:

Examining the effects of tutoring and video self modeling on first grade students with

reading difficulties. Learning disability quarterly, 27, 89 – 103.


Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment

evaluations. Evaluation review, 5, 602–619. doi:10.1177/0193841X8100500502

Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2014). Implicit theories of writing and their impact on students'

response to a SRSD intervention. British journal of educational psychology, 84(4)

571-590.

Marcus, A., & Wilder, D. A. (2009).A comparison of peer video modeling and self video model

ing to teach textual responses in children with autism. Journal of applied behavior

analysis, 42, 335-341.

Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive behavior modification: An integrative approach. New York,

NY: Plenum.

McCarthy, P., Meier, S., & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-efficacy and writing: A different view of

self-evaluation. College composition and communication, 36, 465–471.

doi 10.2307/357865

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Lessons learned from the 2012 grade 4 writing

computer-based assessment study. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The nation's report card: Reading 2011.

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.

Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

Pajares, F., Johnson, M. J., & Usher, E. L. (2007). Sources of writing self-efficacy beliefs of

elementary, middle, and high school students. Research in the teaching of english,

42(1), 104-120.


Prater, M. A., Carter, N., Hitchcock, C., & Dowrick, P. (2012). Video self-modeling to

improve academic performance: A literature review. Psychology in the schools, 49(1), 7

71-81.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816

Robson, C., Blampied, N., & Walker, L. (2015). Effects of feedforward video self-modeling on

reading fluency and comprehension. Behaviour change, 32, pp 46-58

doi:10.1017/bec2014.29

Santangelo, T., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2008). Using self-regulated strategy development

to support students who have “Trubal Giting Thangs into Werds”. Remedial and

special education, 29(2), 78-89.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self efficacy

and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and writing

quarterly, 23, 7–25. doi:10.1080/10573560600837578

Shell, D., Murphy, C., & Bruning, R. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms

in reading and writing achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 81, 91–100.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.91

Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course

attainment. American educational research journal, 31, 845–862.


Zimmerman, B. J. & Schunk, D. H. (2008) An essential dimension of self-regulated learning.

In Schunk, Dale H. (Ed); Zimmerman, Barry J. (Ed), (2008). Motivation and

self-regulated learning: Theory, research and applications.31-51. New York, NY, US:

Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Self-Modeling and Self-Regulated Strategy Instruction for Writing

Documents

Transcript of Self-Modeling and Self-Regulated Strategy Instruction for Writing