Öz Düzenlemeye Dayalı Yazma Stratejileri Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, ilkokul ve ortaokul öğrencilerinin yazma sürecinde kullandıkları öz düzenlemeye dayalı stratejileri ölçmek üzere geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirmektir. Bu araştırma, öğrencilere yönelik Öz Düzenlemeye Dayalı Yazma Stratejileri Ölçeği'nin geliştirilmesine yönelik çok aşamalı bir ölçek geliştirme çalışmasıdır. Süreç; madde havuzu oluşturma, uzman görüşüyle kapsam geçerliğinin sağlanması, pilot uygulama, açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri ile güvenirlik analizlerini içermektedir. Veriler, ölçüt, kolay ulaşılabilir ve tabakalı örnekleme yöntemleriyle belirlenen dört farklı katılımcı grubundan toplanmıştır. Analizlerde kapsam ve yapı geçerliği, Cronbach Alfa güvenirlik katsayıları ile ikinci düzey doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uygulanmıştır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi (n=473) sonucunda elde edilen beş faktörlü yapı, toplam varyansın %51.6'sını açıklamıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (n=341) ile elde edilen uyum indeksleri (CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .045) modelin kuramsal yapı ile yüksek düzeyde örtüştüğünü göstermiştir. Cronbach's Alpha (.68–.90) katsayısı ölçeğin yüksek iç tutarlılığa sahip olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ölçeğin hiyerarşik yapısı, ikinci düzey DFA ile sınanmış ve beş alt boyutun öz düzenlemeye dayalı yazma stratejileri üst yapısı altında örgütlendiği doğrulanmıştır. Ayrıca, paralel formlar güvenirliği analizi, mevcut bir üstbilişsel yazma ölçeğiyle yüksek düzeyde korelasyon göstermiştir (r=.834). Bu bağlamda ÖDDYSÖ, öğrencilerin yazılı anlatım sürecine ilişkin öz düzenleyici becerilerini değerlendirmek ve yazma eğitimine yönelik öğretimsel uygulamaları yönlendirmek için geçerli, güvenilir ve uygulamaya dönük güçlü bir araç olarak literatüre katkı sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Öz düzenleme
• yazma stratejileri
• ölçek geliştirme
• doğrulayıcı faktör analizi.

Development of the Self-Regulated Writing Strategies Scale: A Study of Validity and Reliability

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool to assess the self-regulated strategies used by elementary and middle school students in the writing process. This study is a multi-stage scale development process aimed at developing a Self-Regulated Writing Strategies Scale for students. The process includes item pool creation, ensuring content validity through expert opinion, pilot testing, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and reliability analyses. Data were collected from four different participant groups determined by criterion, convenience, and stratified sampling methods. In the analyses, content and construct validity were assessed using Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficients and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. The five-factor structure obtained from the exploratory factor analysis (n=473) explained 51.6% of the total variance. The fit indices obtained with confirmatory factor analysis (n=341) (CFI=.91, TLI=.90, RMSEA=.045) showed that the model was highly consistent with the theoretical structure. Cronbach's Alpha (.68–.90) coefficient indicates that the scale has high internal consistency. The hierarchical structure of the scale was tested with second-order DFA, confirming that the five subscales are organized under the superstructure of self-regulated writing strategies. Furthermore, parallel forms reliability analysis showed a high correlation with an existing metacognitive writing scale (r = .834). In this context, the ÖDDYSÖ contributes to the literature as a valid, reliable, and practice-oriented tool for assessing students' self-regulatory skills related to the written expression process and guiding instructional practices for writing education.

Keywords

• Self-regulation
• writing strategies
• scale development
• confirmatory factor analysis.

References

1. Ayre, C., ve Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808
2. Bai, B., ve Guo, W. (2021). Motivation and self-regulated strategy use: Relationships to primary school students’ English writing in Hong Kong. Language Teaching Research, 25(3), 378-399. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216881985992
3. Bai, R., Hu, G., ve Gu, P. Y. (2014). The relationship between use of writing strategies and English proficiency in Singapore primary schools. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23, 355-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0110-0
4. Bai, B. (2018). Understanding primary school students’ use of self-regulated writing strategies through think-aloud protocols. System, 78, 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.07.003
5. Bartholomew, D. J., Knott, M., ve Moustaki, I. (2011). Latent variable models and factor analysis: A unified approach. Wiley.
6. Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. Guilford Press.
7. Blunch, N. J. (2013). Introduction to structural equation modeling using IBM SPSS Statistics and AMOS. SAGE Publications.
8. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.

9. Browne, M. W., ve Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen ve J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.
10. Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
11. Cer, E. (2019). The instruction of writing strategies: The effect of the metacognitive strategy on the writing skills of pupils in secondary education. SAGE Open, 9(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019842681
12. Chien, S. C. (2012). Students' use of writing strategies and their English writing achievements in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(1), 93-112.
13. Creswell, J. W. (2018). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
14. Cohen, L., Manion, L., ve Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge.
15. Cuenca-Carlino, Y., Gozur, M., Jozwik, S., ve Krissinger, E. (2018). The impact of self-regulated strategy development on the writing performance of English learners. Reading ve Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 34(3), 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2017.1407977
16. Çelik, Z. (2025). Sosyal bilimlerde pratik veri analizleri-SPSS, PROCESS MAKRO, AMOS, JAMOVI, UCINET, VOSviewer ve GPower ile örnek uygulamalı istatistiksel analizler. Nobel.
17. Çelikkaleli, O., ve Yıldırım, K. (2015). Adaptation of perceived self-regulatory efficacy scale for writing into Turkish language. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(4). 223-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2015.04.015
18. De Kruif, R. E. L. (2000). Self-regulated writing: Examining students’ responses to questions about their knowledge, motivation, and strategies for writing. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of North Carolina.
19. Deniz, H. ve Demir, S. (2024). Yazma öz düzenleme yetkinliği ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 22(1), 536-560. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1370391
20. DeVellis, R. F., ve Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications. SAGE.
21. Ding, W., Lan, H., Chu, Y., ve Mao, Q. (2025). Moderated mediating effect of writing self-regulation strategies on writing scores. written communication, 42(2), 435-460. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883241303917
22. Duijnhouwer, H., Prins, F. J., ve Stokking, K. M. (2012). Feedback providing improvement strategies and reflection on feedback use: Effects on students’ writing motivation, process, and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.003
23. Dunn, T.J., Baguley, T. ve Brunsden, V. (2014), From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
24. Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538645
25. Enders, C. K. (2022). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.
26. Erol, T., ve Kavruk, H. (2023). Üstbilişsel yazma stratejilerini kullanma eğilimi ölçeği. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 25, 170-187. https://doi.org/10.29029/busbed.1207930
27. Fernandez, J., ve Guilbert, J. (2024). The effectiveness of self-regulated strategy development: Underlying cognitive and metacognitive mechanisms. Metacognition Learning, 19, 1091–1135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09398-7
28. Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. SAGE.
29. Flower, L., ve Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/356600
30. Fornell, C., ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
31. Garson, G. D. (2013). Validity and reliability. Statistical Associates.
32. Garson, G. D. (2021). Data analytics for the social sciences: Applications in R. Routledge.
33. Garson, G. D. (2022). Factor analysis and dimension reduction in R: A social scientist's toolkit. Routledge.
34. Gay, L. R., ve Mills, G. E. (2018). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Pearson.
35. George, D., ve Mallery, P. (2020). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
36. Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, ve J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). Guilford.
37. Graham, S. (2018). A revised writer(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406
38. Graham, S., Collins, A. A., ve Ciullo, S. (2024). Evidence-based recommendations for teaching writing. Education 3-13, 52(7), 979-992. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2024.2357893
39. Graham, S., ve Harris, K. R. (1994). The role and development of self-regulation in the writing process. In D. Schunk ve B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 203–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
40. Graham, S., ve Harris, K. R. (1997). Self-regulation and writing: Where do we go from here?. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 102-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0920
41. Graham, S., ve Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_2
42. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C., ve Santangelo, T. (2018). Self-regulation and writing. In D. H. Schunk ve J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 138–152). Routledge.
43. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., ve Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of selfregulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001
44. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Kiuhara, S. A., ve Fishman, E. J. (2017). The relationship among strategic writing behavior, writing motivation, and writing performance with young, developing writers. The Elementary School Journal, 118(1), 82-104. https://doi.org/10.1086/693009
45. Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., ve Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879.
46. Graham, S., ve Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescent middle and high school- A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
47. Green, S. B., ve Salkind, N. J. (2014). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh: analyzing and understanding data. Pearson.
48. Hacker, D.J. (2023). Self-regulation of writing: Models of writing and the role of metacognition. In R. Horowitz (Eds.), The routledge international handbook of research on writing (pp. 236-257). Routledge.
49. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., ve Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson.
50. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., Reid, R., ve Mason, L. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning processes and children's writing. In B. J. Zimmerman ve D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 187–202). Routledge.
51. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., ve Friedlander, B. (2007). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Brookes.
52. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., ve Santangelo, T. (2013). Self-regulated strategies development in writing: Development, implementation, and scaling up. In H. Bembenutty, T. J. Cleary, ve A. Kitsantas (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (pp. 59–82). IAP Information Age.
53. Harris, K. R., Santangelo, T., ve Graham, S. (2010). Metacognition and strategies instruction in writing. In H. S. Waters, ve W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 226–256). Guilford.
54. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy ve S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–27). Erlbaum.
55. Hayes, A. F., ve Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use Omega rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
56. Hayes, J. R., ve Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg, ve E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. (pp. 3-30). Lawrence Erlbaum.
57. Hidi, S., ve Boscolo, P. (2006). Motivation and writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, ve J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 144–157). The Guilford Press.
58. Ho, R. (2018). Understanding statistics for the social sciences with IBM SPSS. CRC Press.
59. Hu, L.T., ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
60. Irwing, F. P., Booth, T., ve Hughes, D. J. (2018). The wiley handbook of psychometric testing: A multidisciplinary reference on survey, scale, and test development. Wiley.
61. Johnson, R. B., ve Christensen, L. B. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. SAGE Publications.
62. Johnson, R. L., ve Morgan, G. B. (2016). Survey scales: A guide to development, analysis, and reporting. Guilford Press.
63. Kansızoğlu, H. B. (2020). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin üstbilişsel yazma farkındalık düzeylerinin ölçülmesi: Bir literatür inceleme ve ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 39(2), 123-152. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.777043
64. Kaplan, D. (2004). The SAGE handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences. SAGE Publications.
65. Kaya Özgül, B., ve Ateş, S. (2023). İlkokul dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerine yönelik öz düzenlemeye dayalı yazma ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(4), 1863-1882. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2023..-1227326
66. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy ve S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
67. Kim, Y.S.G., Yang, D., Reyes, M. ve Connor, C. (2021). Writing instruction improves students’ writing skills differentially depending on focal instruction and children: A meta-analysis for primary grade students. Educational Research Review, 34, 100408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100408
68. Kline, P. (2015a). A handbook of test construction: introduction to psychometric design. Routledge.
69. Kline, R. B. (2015b). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford.
70. Lane, S., Raymond, M. R., ve Haladyna, T. M. (2015). Handbook of test development. Routledge.
71. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
72. Leavy, P. (2022). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. The Guilford Press.
73. Limpo, T., ve Alves, R. A. (2013). Modeling writing development: Contribution of transcription and self-regulation to Portuguese students’ text generation quality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031391.
74. Lin, S. J., Monroe, B. W., ve Troia, G. A. (2007). Development of writing knowledge in grades 2–8: A comparison of typically developing writers and their struggling peers. Reading ve Writing Quarterly, 23(3), 207-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560701277542
75. McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 13-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_3
76. Mertler, C. A., ve Vannatta Reinhart, R. (2017). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Routledge.
77. Muthén, L. K., ve Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén ve Muthén.
78. Müldür, M. (2017). Öz düzenlemeye dayalı yazma eğitiminin ortaokul öğrencilerinin bilgilendirici metin yazma becerisine, yazmaya yönelik öz düzenleme becerisine ve yazma öz yeterlik algısına etkisi. [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
79. Nückles, M., Hübner, S., ve Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.002
80. Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education.
81. Paris, S.G., ve Winograd, P. (2003). The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching: Principles for teacher preparation. A. Commissioned Paper for the U.S. Department of Education project, “Preparing Teachers to Use Contextual Teaching and Learning Strategies to Improve Student Success in and beyond School.”, Washington, DC.
82. Perry, N., ve Drummond, L. (2002). Helping young students become self-regulated researchers and writers. The Reading Teacher, 56(3), 298-310. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20205197 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
83. Phramphun, T., ve Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2023). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on writing skill and self-regulated learning of Thai high school students. Arab World English Journal, 14(3) 339-350. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol14no3.21
84. Raykov, T., ve Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. Routledge.
85. Roos, J. M., ve Bauldry, S. (2021). Confirmatory factor analysis. SAGE.
86. Santangelo, T., Harris, K. R., ve Graham, S. (2016). Self-regulation and writing: Meta-analysis of the self-regulation processes in Zimmerman and Risemberg's model. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, ve J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 174–193). Guilford.
87. Scardamalia, M., ve Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics (pp. 142-175). Cambridge University.
88. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., ve Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.
89. Schumacker, R. E., ve Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Routledge.
90. Schunk, D. H., ve Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation. Schunk, D. H., ve Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 1-31). Lawrence Erlbaum.
91. Sun, T., Wang, C. ve Wang, Y. (2022). The effectiveness of self-regulated strategy development on improving English writing: Evidence from the last decade. Reading and Writing, 35, 2497–2522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10297-z
92. Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Routledge.
93. Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
94. Tarka, P. (2018). An overview of structural equation modeling: its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences. Quality ve Quantity, 52, 313–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0469-8
95. Teng, L.S. (2022). Self-regulated learning and second language writing. Springer.
96. Teng, M. F., Wang, C., ve Zhang, L. J. (2022). Assessing self-regulatory writing strategies and their predictive effects on young EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessing Writing, 51, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100573
97. Thakkar, J.J. (2020). Structural equation modelling: Application for research and practice (with AMOS and R). Springer.
98. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.
99. Uygun, M. (2012). Öz düzenleme stratejisi gelişimi öğretiminin yazılı anlatıma, yazmaya yönelik öz düzenleme becerisine, kalıcılığa ve tutuma etkisi. [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
100. Whittaker, T. A., ve Schumacker, R. E. (2022). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Routledge.
101. Woo, E., ve Kim, D. H. (2024). Measuring secondary school students’ L2 writing self‐regulated strategies in the Korean EFL context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 1074-1088. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12551
102. Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A., ve Doval, E. (2017). A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Anales de Psicología, 33(3), 755–782. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401
103. Yurdugül, H. (2005). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerliği için kapsam geçerlik indekslerinin kullanılması. [Sözlü bildiri]. XIV. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, 28–30 Eylül, 771-774, Denizli, Türkiye.
104. Zare, J., Zhang, L. J., ve Madiseh, F. R. (2025). Emotion regulation strategies and task engagement in L2 development: A structural equation modeling analysis. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2025.2501605
105. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studing and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective. Educational psychologist, 33(2-3), 73-86.
106. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, ve M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.
107. Zimmerman, B. J., ve Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845–862. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031004845
108. Zimmerman, B. J., ve Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.4.660
109. Zimmerman, B. J., ve Kitsantas, A. (2007). A writer’s discipline: The development of selfregulatory skill. P. Boscolo ve S. Hidi (Eds.), Writing and motivation (pp. 51-69), Oxford: Elsevier.
110. Zimmerman, B. J., ve Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.241
111. Zimmerman, B. J., ve Risemberg, R. (1997a). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0919
112. Zimmerman, B. J., ve Risemberg, R. (1997b). Caveats and recommendations about selfregulation of writing: A social cognitive rejoinder. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 115-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0921