Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this study, an explanatory sequential design was utilized to examine the impact of strategy-based instruction (SBI) on the writing performance and motivation of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in a writing course. A total of 50 Chinese EFL students were selected from two intact classes and were randomly assigned to either the control group (n = 24) or the experimental group (n = 26). The experimental group received a sixteen-week metacognition training program integrated into the writing course, while the control group was provided with conventional writing instruction. Data collection was performed through timed writing tasks, a second language writing motivation scale, and semi-structured interviews. The results indicated that the experimental group exhibited a significant improvement in both writing performance and motivation, in comparison to the control group. This study provides empirical evidence for the benefits of SBI in promoting students’ writing competency and motivation. The findings have important implications for researchers and educators in the field of EFL writing instruction.

Plain Language Summary

This study aimed to investigate the effects of a strategy-based writing instruction program on the writing performance and motivation of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. The researchers selected 50 Chinese EFL students and divided them into two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The experimental group received a sixteen-week training program that focused on metacognitive writing strategies, while the control group received traditional writing instruction. The researchers collected data through timed writing tasks, a writing motivation scale, and interviews. The findings of the study revealed that the students in the experimental group showed significant improvement in both their writing performance and motivation compared to the control group. This suggests that the strategy-based instruction had a positive impact on their attitudes, interest, and engagement in writing tasks. The explicit instruction of writing strategies, along with regular practice and feedback, contributed to the students’ increased confidence and sense of competence in writing. The study highlights the importance of addressing learners’ motivational factors in language instruction. By integrating metacognitive strategies into writing instruction, educators can enhance students’ motivation and overall writing skills. This has important implications for EFL classrooms, as it provides evidence that a strategic approach to writing instruction can lead to better outcomes for students. However, it is important to note that this study also has limitations. The sample size was relatively small, and the study was conducted in a specific context with Chinese EFL learners. Therefore, the generalizability of the findings may be limited to similar contexts. Future research could explore the effectiveness of strategy-based writing instruction in different settings and with larger samples to further validate the study’s findings. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the positive impact of strategy-based writing instruction on EFL learners’ writing performance and motivation. By incorporating explicit writing strategies and providing regular practice and feedback, educators can empower students to become more confident and proficient writers. The findings suggest that a strategic approach to writing instruction can benefit students in their language learning journey.

Keywords

strategy-based instruction writing performance writing motivation EFL

Introduction

The concept of language learning strategies has been of interest to many researchers (Chamot & Harris, 2019; Griffiths & Oxford, 2014; Wang et al., 2022). They refer to “specific methods or techniques used by individual learners to facilitate the comprehension, retention, retrieval and application of information in the second or foreign language” (Lan & Oxford, 2003, p. 339). Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the utilization of language learning strategies (LLSs) plays a substantial role in language attainment and the association between strategy use and successful language learning has been supported by a substantial body of research (Gunning & Oxford, 2014). For strategies to be effectively employed in the language classrooms, teachers should provide their students with strategy awareness. As a result, many language teaching experts and practitioners have adopted the strategy-based instruction (SBI) approach, which emphasizes the need for deliberate strategy teaching by incorporating strategy training into language instruction in the classroom (Gunning & Oxford, 2014; Pawlak, 2019a; Yapp et al., 2021). It has been defined as “explicit classroom instruction directed at learners regarding their language learning and use strategies, and provided alongside instruction in the foreign language itself” (Cohen, 1996, p. 12). The objective of these SBI programs is to promote employing LLSs by the foreign language learners and to aid them in using more effective strategies, match strategies to task demands, and use them flexibly.

Additionally, despite the numerous academic claims regarding the positive impact of LLSs on second language development, there has been a lack of sufficient research attention devoted to investigating the specific ways in which strategy-based instruction programs can improve particular language skills within specific contexts and through specific teaching methods (Griffiths & Oxford, 2014; Zhang et al., 2019). Among the variables which make the efficacy of LLSs controversial and complicated, context and methodology have been acknowledged as variables creating variation in the ultimate learning outcomes (Griffiths & Oxford, 2014).

With regard to the role of context, a number of scholars have cogently acknowledged its key role in language learning in general (e.g., Larsen-Freeman, 2018;; Saville-Troike & Barto, 2017) and in strategy use in particular (e.g., Oxford, 2016). The role of contextual variables in influencing strategy choice and use has been accepted by researchers and they scarcely consider any single assessment instrument to be applicable and equally effective for various groups of language learners in different contexts (Csizér & Tankó, 2017; Pawlak, 2019a). Therefore, researchers and practitioners willing to employ pre-existing strategy inventories are encouraged to “make cultural adaptations and re-assess reliability and validity in each study and each sociocultural context” (Oxford, 2011, p. 162). Within this line of inquiry, the implementation of SBI to different skills in various contexts might evoke different results (Pawlak, 2019a).

Moreover, as far as strategy use within intervention studies is concerned, particular attention should be given to the employed research methodology (Graham et al., 2008, 2020). Since strategy use is unobservable and a mental activity (Dalman & Plonsky, 2022), it would be too tenuous to make judgments about the effectiveness and appropriateness of SBI programs just based on quantitative research designs. As a result, it is suggested that the researchers triangulate their findings using qualitative research methods (Griffiths & Oxford, 2014; Pawlak, 2019a, 2019b). Due to the fact that the employment of learning strategies by the language learners can be neither observed nor measured directly, the combination of both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies in the form of mixed-methods tools is required to present a clearer description of LLSs and their use. Mixed-method research is a kind of research in which qualitative and quantitative methods are integrated in a single study (Cresswell & Plano Clerk, 2011). In the present study, a special kind of mixed-method design called sequential explanatory design is used. In the quantitative phase, a strategy-based instruction intervention was conducted for 16 weeks in which the experimental group received the instruction while the control group didn’t receive it and the role of SBI in language learners’ writing performance and achievement was investigated. Before implementing the intervention, students took a pre-test of writing performance and writing motivation to be sure that students have the same or similar levels of writing performance and motivation. After the treatment, students took the post-tests of writing performance and motivation to see whether the intervention influenced these variables. In the qualitative phase of the study, students were interviewed to express their opinions and experiences about SBI.

Review of the Literature

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework guiding this study is anchored in Oxford’s (2017) strategic self-regulation model, renowned for its comprehensive comprehension of language learning strategies and their interplay with self-regulation, agency, and associated factors. By adopting Oxford’s framework, this study establishes a robust theoretical underpinning for the investigation of the influence of SBI on writing performance and motivation.

Oxford’s model places considerable emphasis on the pivotal role of self-regulation, agency, and related factors as fundamental constituents of learning strategies (Oxford, 2017). Self-regulation refers to learners’ ability to assume control over their own learning processes, encompassing goal-setting, progress monitoring, and adaptive strategy implementation. Agency encapsulates learners’ sense of autonomy and empowerment in making informed decisions pertaining to their learning journey. These components accentuate the active agency learners wield in managing and directing their language learning experiences (Oxford, 2017).

Moreover, Oxford’s model acknowledges the practical manifestations of learning strategies across diverse language skill domains, including writing, grammar, and vocabulary. It recognizes that strategies are not isolated entities but rather embedded within specific language tasks and contextual configurations. This facet of the model aligns harmoniously with the focal point of this study, which explores the ramifications of SBI within the distinct realm of EFL writing instruction. It underscores the pertinence and applicability of the theoretical framework to the research context.

By embracing Oxford’s strategic self-regulation model, this study engenders a comprehensive comprehension of language learning strategies and their interconnectedness with self-regulation, agency, and other related factors. The framework serves as a theoretical lens through which the impact of SBI on writing performance and motivation can be meticulously scrutinized, offering invaluable insights into the underlying processes and outcomes of strategic writing instruction within the EFL landscape.

Strategies-Based Instruction in L2 Writing Research

Given the significance of language learning strategies and their contribution to L2 learning (Behroozian et al., 2023; Cohen, 2011; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Du & Man, 2022; Fathi et al., 2020; Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford & Amerstoefer, 2018; Pawlak, 2019a, 2019b) several review studies have examined the effectiveness of SBI in enhancing language learning outcomes (Fathi & Hamidizadeh, 2019; Hassan et al., 2005; Manchón, 2018; Plonsky, 2011). These review studies have indicated that SBI has a positive impact on L2 writing performance which is considered a key skill in L2 learning (Ai, 2015; Nguyen et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2015). However, according to these reviews, very few studies have examined the effect of SBI on writing in comparison with other language skills. For example, Hassan et al. (2005) just mentioned two studies in their review of writing skill. Due to the paucity of research on SBI in the field of L2 writing research, Plonsky (2011, p. 1017) stated that “further research needed on the effects of SI [strategy instruction] on writing.” A review of studies which have examined the role of SBI in writing is given below.

Several studies have been conducted to examine the role of different SBI techniques on writing performance. These studies have indicated that various SBI activities such as revision strategy training (Sengupta, 2000), teaching dictionary skills (Bishop, 2001), teaching sociocultural writing strategies (Liu et al., 2022; Rahimi & Noroozisiam, 2013), brainstorming strategy training (Rao, 2007), a five-step SBI procedure (strategy preparation, strategy awareness-raising, strategy instruction, strategy practice, and personalization of strategies, McMullen, 2009), metacognition training program (Nguyen & Gu, 2013), self-regulated strategy development (SRSD; Mastan et al., 2017), a longitudinal cognitive instruction (Olson & Land, 2007) can improve L2 writing performance.

In addition to these studies, two studies were conducted by De Silva (2015) and De Silva and Graham (2015) to examine the role of training writing strategies on writing strategy use and writing achievement among students who were taking an English for Academic Purposes course. Relying on previous studies on strategy instruction and L2 writing, the present researcher designed an L2 writing strategy instruction cycle which included 11 steps. Findings of both studies showed that this writing strategy instruction enhanced learners’ writing strategy use and writing performance significantly.

The studies reviewed above confirm the effectiveness of strategy instruction programs. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has been a lack of research examining the impact of strategy-based writing instruction on L2 writing motivation. The complexity of L2 writing entails the harmonious orchestration of multiple cognitive and linguistic processes and resources (Kellogg, 1996), leading to recognition of the role of individual or psychological factors, such as writing motivation, in shaping the writing process by some scholars (e.g., Fathi et al., 2019; Han & Hiver, 2018; Kormos, 2012; Piniel & Csizér, 2015).

Motivation in L2 Writing Research

Motivation which is considered as a quintessential element of successful language learning has been redefined as a dynamic process which may vary over time and across situations (Dornyei, 2001). Influenced by the work of Gardner and Lambert (1972), early L2 motivation research was predominantly concerned with the investigation of individuals’ underlying reasons for learning languages, their persistence in learning, and their degree of success as indicated by final-term grades or general L2 proficiency measures (Fathi et al., 2023; Ushioda, 2016; Wang, 2023). This perspective was too broad to examine the interaction of motivation with the particular cognitive, metacognitive, and psycholinguistic processes of language learning (Zhang et al., 2022). However, the current complex dynamic perspective to L2 motivation (Dornyei et al., 2015; Papi & Hiver, 2020) allows the investigation of interactions among different components within a system. According to this dynamic model, the language learner may be conceptualized as a complex system including a dynamic repertoire of cognitive, affective, motivational, and behavioral features that are always interacting with each other (Dornyei, 2009). According to this perspective, a language learner may be affected by a various set of context-sensitive motivational factors at a time (Apple et al., 2016). For the purpose of the present study, L2 writing motivation was considered as the students’ overall motivation and desire to improve L2 writing skill via various means. Employing the L2 writing motivation scale developed by Waller and Papi (2017), we used their conceptualization in which “learners’ L2 writing motivation is a measure of the amount of effort they intend to invest in improving their L2 writing, their desire for doing so, and how intensely they are engaged in this pursuit” (p. 57).

The Present Study

Based on the above-mentioned literature, LLSs can be an important and promising area of research. Despite the recognition of the role of SBI in developing second language skills, limited research has been conducted to examine the effectiveness of SBI programs. Given the complexity of second language writing, it is important to consider the individual and psychological factors, such as writing motivation, that can impact the writing process. This study aims to fill the gap in the literature by examining the effects of an SBI program on both writing performance and motivation of Chinese EFL students using a mixed-method design, taking into account the contextual and methodological factors that may moderate the effectiveness of SBI.

The reason we used a mixed-methods approach was due to the nature of strategies which are not directly observable or measurable, and a combination of both quantitative and qualitative approaches can deepen our understanding of strategies (Griffiths & Oxford, 2014; Pawlak, 2019a, 2019b). The findings of the present study may shed more light on teachability of effective strategy use, a question which has attracted much empirical research in various contexts since the 1990s (De Silva & Graham, 2015). Therefore, to achieve the objectives of the present study, two research questions were formulated:

Research Question 1: Does metacognitive writing strategy training significantly improve writing performance of EFL learners?

Research Question 2: Does metacognitive writing strategy training significantly enhance writing motivation of EFL learners?

Research Question 3: What are the perceptions and experiences of EFL learners regarding the effectiveness of the metacognitive writing strategy instruction program?

Method

The present study was carried out in two phases using an explanatory sequential design (Creswell, 2014; Ivankova et al., 2006). In the first phase, quantitative data were collected via administering the timed writing tasks and second language writing motivation scale. The second stage of the study involved conducting semi-structured interviews to examine the impact of the strategy-based instruction program on the writing ability and motivation of EFL learners. The design, an explanatory sequential design, aimed to utilize the qualitative results to elaborate on and interpret the outcomes from the quantitative phase.

Participants

A sample of 50 Chinese EFL students was recruited as participants for the present study conducted at a language institute in Zhengzhou, Henan Province in China. The participants were selected using a convenience sampling technique, whereby the students from two intact classes which were randomly assigned to experimental group (n = 26) and control group (n = 24). The use of convenience sampling was deemed appropriate due to the accessibility and availability of participants from the language institute. This sampling technique allowed for a practical and feasible recruitment process, ensuring an adequate sample size within the constraints of the study. The students were all adults seeking to enhance their English writing competencies and their first language was Mandarin Chinese. The sample consisted of both male (n = 21) and female (n = 29) students with an age range of 20 to 24 years old (M = 22.6, SD = 3.24). The participants were enrolled in a 16-week English writing course, which was designed to help improve their writing skills. The course was taught by a certified English teacher who used the same textbook and materials for both groups and was held twice a week for 2 hr each session.

The participants consisted of undergraduate students from a public university in their second year of studies. The language institute was affiliated with the university and provided language courses to supplement the students’ academic curriculum. Their majors varied across different disciplines, including Business Administration, Engineering, English Language and Literature, and Computer Science. Also, the English writing course in which the participants were enrolled was a mandatory course for all second-year students as part of their university’s English language curriculum. The course was designed to enhance students’ writing skills and promote effective communication in English across various academic disciplines.

Prior to starting the course, the participants took an English proficiency test, the Oxford Placement Test (OPT), to assess their general English writing abilities. An independent samples t-test was run to compare the mean scores on the OPT and ensure the homogeneity of the group with respect to their English writing proficiency. The results showed that there was no significant difference in terms of general English writing proficiency among the participants before the course began (experimental group: M = 42.85, SD = 3.57; control group: M = 43.17, SD = 3.53; t(48) = −0.36, p = .72). It is worth mentioning that the participation in the study was voluntary and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Instruments

The Writing Scoring Scale

The evaluation of students’ essays was performed using Jacobs et al.‘s (1981) analytical scoring scale, which assesses five content aspects of communicative quality, organization, paragraphing, cohesion, and relevance, and adequacy (see Appendix A). The scale consists of five subcategories, including content criteria, organization criteria, vocabulary criteria, language criteria, and mechanics criteria, and awards a total of 100 points, with 30 points allotted to content, 25 points to language use, 20 points to organization, 20 points to vocabulary, and 5 points to mechanics. The essay’s writing quality is divided equally between global aspects (content and organization) and formal aspects (vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics). Two graduate students who were familiar and trained with the scoring rubric assessed the essays, and inter-rater reliability was ensured by having two independent trained raters score 35% of the essays. The results of the Cohen’s Kappa inter-rater reliability test showed a reliability index of .84.

Proficiency Test

Oxford Placement Test (OPT) (Allan, 2004) served as the proficiency test of the present study. OPT comprises 200 items and measures two receptive skills of listening and reading, and two components of grammar and vocabulary. This test can be used as a reliable measure for grouping language learners from beginners to advanced levels (Allan, 2004).The reliability index of the whole test in the present study was reported to be .89.

Timed Writing Tasks

The present study utilized two 45-min writing assignments as pre- and post-tests. The assignments consisted of two topics that were selected to not require prior knowledge from the participants. The subjects of the pre-test and post-test were:

(a) Pre-test topic: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Only people who earn a lot of money are successful. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

(b) Post-test topic: Some people think that technology has made life easier and more convenient, while others think that it has caused problems. What is your opinion? Use specific examples and details to support your answer.

Second Language Writing Motivation Scale (SLWMS)

The present study used the Second Language Writing Motivation Scale (SLWMS) developed by Waller and Papi (2017) as a measure of students’ motivation toward learning L2 writing. The SLWMS was chosen due to its suitability for assessing motivation in L2 writing. It captures the multifaceted nature of motivation through items that assess various aspects such as effort, desire to learn, and intensity of motivation toward L2 writing. The scale uses a 6-point Likert format, ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always), and demonstrated good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha score of .84 in this study. A sample item of the scale is “When I get my papers back, I read all of the comments carefully.”

Procedure

To accomplish the purpose of the study, an SBI intervention package focusing on training of metacognitive writing strategies (e.g., skills of planning, monitoring, and evaluating in essay writing) was developed to be integrated in a 16-week writing course in the experimental group. The SBI framework employed in the present study was the cognitive academic learning approach (CALLA) framework developed by Chamot et al. (1999) constituting five basic stages of preparation, presentation, practice, evaluation, and expansion.

During the preparation stage, the students’ background knowledge of the essay topics was activated, and their awareness and experience of the target strategy were assessed. The teacher then presented the target strategy using various techniques, and the students were provided with ample time to practice the strategies through specific tasks and sample essays. The evaluation stage involved collective engagement in reflecting on the use and effectiveness of the strategies. Students expressed their opinions on their level of strategy learning and the efficacy of the SBI intervention. This stage aimed to promote metacognitive awareness and self-reflection. In the expansion stage, students were given opportunities to apply the newly learned strategies to tasks similar to those practiced during the course. This stage aimed to reinforce the integration and transfer of the strategies to authentic writing situations.

Starting from the second session, in order to train the experimental class in the metacognitive skills of planning, monitoring, and evaluating in essay writing, a package focusing on training a repertoire of metacognitive writing strategies was incorporated into the regular writing course. In each session, half an hour was devoted to this SBI intervention package (see a sample lesson in Appendix B). During the second session, the basics of paragraph writing such as topic, thesis statement, organization, introductory paragraph, supporting sentences, coherence, cohesion, body, and concluding paragraph were elaborated upon for the students. In the succeeding sessions, the experimental group became familiarized with basic general knowledge about planning, monitoring, and evaluating for their English learning in general and for their essay writing in particular. Moreover, the students were given further information, techniques and strategies on how to plan for a writing task. The purpose was to make the students aware of the importance of purposeful writing. In so doing, the students were trained to employ the strategies of setting goals and doing task analysis for a specific writing task. During the treatment, the students in experimental group were also trained on how to plan the content of their essay. They were informed of strategies on how to brainstorm ideas, activate their schematic knowledge on the topic, guide their thinking, find and organize the ideas relevant to the topic. In next sessions, they were taught on how to do organizational planning for a writing task such as decision making about their rhetorical plans including decisions about choosing the topic to write about, writing their views on the topic, supporting their views, and presenting information. Students of the experimental group were also given the directions on how to plan the language content of their written tasks by paying attention to appropriate vocabulary, wording, sentence structures, organization, and cohesive devices. During the treatment, the students were provided with tasks to practice their learned planning skills including organizational planning and content planning. In subsequent sessions, the students became familiar with monitoring and evaluation skills required for performing a written task.

However, the control group received traditional writing instruction, which followed the standard writing program and curriculum and utilized the same coursebook and materials as those in the experimental group. The three crucial steps of writing instruction, including drafting, feedback, and revision, were implemented in the control group. All activities and assignments were replicated to ensure that the control group received an equivalent amount and type of L2 writing instruction as the experimental group. The only difference between the two groups was that the control group did not receive metacognitive writing strategy instruction. Therefore, the experimental and control groups differed only in the intervention provided, with the control group serving as a comparison group for the study.

In addition to the instruction received, all students in both the experimental and control groups were required to keep all the drafts and final versions of their written assignments in a designated folder. At the end of the course, they were instructed to submit these folders to the instructor. This practice allowed for the collection of students’ written assignments, including drafts and final versions, which were later graded and analyzed for research purposes. Via collecting and analyzing the students’ written assignments, the research aimed to gain insights into the writing performance and progress of both the experimental and control groups. The analysis of these written assignments allowed for a comprehensive examination of the students’ writing skills and the effectiveness of the metacognitive writing strategy instruction provided to the experimental group.

Finally, after the completion of the intervention, the timed writing task (topic b) and SLWMS were administered as the post-tests of the study. Moreover, as a follow-up qualitative phase of the explanatory sequential design, a series of semi-structured interviews were conducted with five participants of the experimental group who volunteered to take part in the interview sessions (see Appendix C). The interviews were carried out on the last day of the course and participants were asked to verbalize a retrospective reflection of their experience with respect to the SBI program and express their attitudes toward the course. The interviews were carried out in the students’ first language and each took around 30 min. The interviews were also recorded, transcribed, and then translated into English.

The qualitative data was analyzed using a thematic analysis approach (Boyatzis, 1998). The transcribed interview data was initially coded using open thematic coding to identify the main themes related to the participants’ perceptions of the strategy-based writing class. Then, using axial coding, the emerged themes were grouped based on their interrelationships and each group of themes was labeled based on the shared codes within that group. The process followed a bottom-up, reiterative approach. The credibility of the interview data was assessed using the member checking technique (Creswell, 2014), where participants were given the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the responses during the interview sessions, and the transcribed interviews were returned to the participants for further review and potential modification. To ensure inter-rater reliability (Gass & Mackey, 2000), the coding, categorizing, and labeling processes were checked by another L2 research expert, and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

Results

Research Question 1: Does Metacognitive Writing Strategy Training Improve Writing Performance of EFL Learners Significantly?

In order to answer the first research question, a one-way between-groups analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was carried out. The present analysis aimed to contrast the efficacy of two approaches to L2 writing instruction by utilizing an ANCOVA analysis. The type of intervention (SBI or traditional) served as the independent variable, while participants’ scores on the posttest writing task were the dependent variable. To control for the effect of the participants’ prior writing performance, their scores on the pretest writing task were incorporated as a covariate. Before conducting the analysis, appropriate tests were conducted to confirm the adherence to normality and linearity assumptions. The descriptive statistics of the participants’ pre- and post-test writing performance for both groups are depicted in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Writing Performance.

Groups	Pre-test		Post-test
Groups	M	SD	M	SD
Control	56.45	11.34	63.22	11.10
Experimental	57.59	10.82	71.94	10.77

The findings from the ANCOVA analysis are displayed in Table 2. The analysis showed that after controlling for the pretest writing scores, there was a statistically significant difference in the average scores between the two groups on the posttest task; F(1, 47) = 7.704, p < .007, partial eta squared = 0.141. As the mean of the experimental group (M = 71.94) was higher than that of control group (M = 63.22) in writing performance, it can be stated that experimental group outperformed control group in writing performance.

Table 2.

ANCOVA Results for Writing Performance Scores.

Source	Type III sum of squares	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.	Partial eta squared
Covariate (pre-test)	2.428	1	2.428	0.020	0.888	0.000
Between-subjects	939.873	1	939.873	7.704	0.007	0.141
Within-subjects	5,733.725	47	121.994

Research Question 2: Does Metacognitive Writing Strategy Training Enhance Writing Motivation of EFL Learners Significantly?

Concerning the role of treatment in writing motivation, another ANCOVA was run. Descriptive statistics for pre-test and post-test of both groups can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics for Writing Motivation.

Groups	Pre-test		Post-test
Groups	M	SD	M	SD
Control	19.79	3.03	21.54	3.29
Experimental	20.21	4.66	24.49	4.48

Results of ANCOVA indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups on post-test scores of writing motivation, F(1, 47) = 7.574, p = .008, partial eta squared = 0.139. As the mean of the experimental group (M = 24.49) was higher than that of control group (M = 21.54) in writing performance, it can be stated that the learners of the experimental group enhanced their writing motivation significantly more than that of the learners in the control group. This suggests that the metacognitive writing strategy training has contributed to improving the L2 writing motivation of the experimental group (Table 4).

Table 4.

ANCOVA Results for Writing Motivation.

Source	Type III sum of squares	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.	Partial eta squared
Covariate (pre-test)	329.828	1	329.828	28.130	0.000	0.374
Between-subjects	88.810	1	88.810	7.574	0.008	0.139
Within-subjects	551.085	47	11.725

Qualitative Findings

Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with five students from the experimental group upon the completion of the SBI-integrated writing course. A thorough content analysis of the interview data revealed several common themes that shed light on the students’ positive perceptions and experiences with the SBI program. The following subsections present the themes that emerged from the interviews, providing illustrative excerpts from the participants to enhance the understanding of their experiences.

Theme 1: Positive Attitudes and Increased Interest in Writing

One prominent theme that emerged from the interviews was the participants’ expression of heightened interest and positive attitudes toward writing as a direct result of their experience with the SBI program. For instance, Fang described the course as “different and systematic, [which] made me become more interested in writing.” Yuling also acknowledged the impact of the instruction of strategies and techniques, stating that it “helped me to get more interested in writing tasks.” She further added, “I came to hold a better feeling towards writing since I felt that my writing has become more purposeful and disciplined.” These excerpts highlight the transformative effect of the SBI program on the participants’ attitudes toward writing, fostering a newfound appreciation for the task.

Theme 2: Sense of Autonomy in Writing Tasks

Another key theme that emerged was the participants’ development of a sense of autonomy in approaching writing tasks as a result of their engagement with the SBI program. Tao expressed his newfound confidence, stating, “I began to feel that I have learned how to write better, and I could self-study other writing textbooks.” Yuling also reflected on her enhanced autonomy, mentioning, “I became confident enough to write independently, outside the class.” These excerpts indicate that the SBI program empowered the participants to take ownership of their writing process, enabling them to work independently and pursue further learning beyond the confines of the classroom.

Theme 3: Enhanced Reflection and Planning

The participants emphasized the importance of reflection and planning in their writing process, highlighting the impact of the SBI program on these aspects. Jian specifically mentioned the significance of planning, stating, “I learned how to make plans about the organization, the content and ideas, and even the language.” Fang also remarked on the deepened level of thinking, stating, “I now think about even the intended content of my last paragraph.” These excerpts indicate that the SBI program equipped the participants with valuable skills in reflection and planning, enabling them to approach writing tasks more thoughtfully and strategically.

Theme 4: Self-Evaluation and Quality Improvement

The participants highlighted the role of self-evaluation and an awareness of writing criteria in improving the quality of their written work. Tao mentioned that the teacher’s instruction on self-evaluation helped him recognize his weaknesses, stating, “It helped me to better recognize my weaknesses and to try more in order to compensate for my shortcomings in writing.” Ming also acknowledged the motivational impact of self-evaluation, saying, “Evaluation of my writings motivated me to write better in further drafts.” These excerpts highlight the participants’ growth in self-awareness and their ability to critically assess their own writing, leading to continuous improvement and a commitment to producing high-quality work.

Theme 5: Problem-Solving Nature of Strategy Instruction

The participants expressed appreciation for the problem-solving nature of the SBI program, which provided them with explicit instruction on writing strategies and facilitated regular practice. Jian remarked, “This is the first time that I was directly told how to brainstorm ideas, how to write a thesis statement, how to organize the ideas, and how to use appropriate vocabulary.” Yuling also recognized the positive effect of strategy instruction, stating, “Explicit instruction of all the nuts and bolts of writing certainly pushed me to write more and better.” Tao further highlighted the program’s impact on problem-solving, stating, “Strategy instructions helped me solve my problems in writing, which helped me to like writing.” These excerpts underscore the participants’ perception of the SBI program as a valuable tool for overcoming writing challenges, equipping them with the skills necessary for successful written communication.

Theme 6: Improved English Writing Abilities

One important theme that emerged from the interviews was the participants’ perception of improved English writing abilities as a result of attending the SBI-integrated writing course. Participants acknowledged the positive impact of the course on their writing skills and expressed a sense of growth and progress. For example, Fang mentioned, “I feel that my writing has become more purposeful and disciplined,” highlighting the development of more effective writing practices. Yuling also noted the improvement, stating, “I became confident enough to write independently, outside the class,” indicating increased self-assurance in their writing abilities. These excerpts indicate that the SBI program contributed to the participants’ perceived enhancement of their English writing skills.

Theme 7: Potential Integration of SBI in Regular English Writing Classrooms

The participants were asked about their opinions on whether the SBI program should be integrated into regular English writing classrooms. Their responses revealed a unanimous agreement on the potential benefits of integrating SBI instruction. Fang stated, “Yes, I think this course should be integrated into regular English writing classrooms because it offers valuable strategies and techniques.” Yuling elaborated on this, mentioning, “The strategies taught in this course are essential for writing success, and integrating them in regular classes would greatly benefit all students.” These excerpts demonstrate the participants’ recognition of the value of SBI instruction and their belief in its applicability to broader contexts. The participants’ support for integrating SBI in regular English writing classrooms suggests the potential for wider implementation and the positive impact it could have on students’ writing outcomes.

Overall, the analysis of the qualitative data revealed consistent themes of positive attitudes, a sense of autonomy, reflection and planning, self-evaluation, and the problem-solving nature of strategy instruction. These findings provide deeper insights into the participants’ experiences and contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the factors that contribute to their improved writing performance and motivation.

Discussion

The present study aimed to investigate the impact of writing strategy instruction on the writing performance and motivation of Chinese EFL students. The findings revealed that providing metacognitive strategy training led to improved writing performance among the experimental group students, which is consistent with previous research on SBI (Fathi & Hamidizadeh, 2019; Goh, 2008; Goh & Taib, 2006; Gunning & Oxford, 2014; Ma & Oxford, 2014; Zhang, 2010) and its effectiveness in improving L2 written performance (De Silva, 2015; De Silva & Graham, 2015; McMullen, 2009; Nguyen & Gu, 2013; Rahimi & Noroozisiam, 2013). Via explicitly teaching students how to plan, monitor, and evaluate their writing, the SBI program provided them with a systematic approach to the writing process and equipped them with the necessary tools to self-regulate their learning (Sasaki et al., 2018). This, in turn, fostered their sense of autonomy and agency, leading to improved writing performance and increased motivation.

These findings align with previous review studies (Hassan et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2022; Plonsky, 2011; Yapp et al., 2021) that have examined the overall body of empirical research, consistently showing the positive impact of strategy instruction on L2 learning outcomes. Specifically, the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy training is widely recognized in L2 research, as metacognition plays a crucial role in English language learning (De Silva & Graham, 2015; Liu et al., 2022; Teng, 2020; Wenden, 1998). Previous research has demonstrated that the use of metacognitive skills enhances students’ learning (Brevik, 2019; Dalman & Plonsky, 2022; Golparvar & Khafi, 2021; Oxford, 2016; Zhao & Liao, 2021), and incorporating metacognitive awareness and self-monitoring activities in the classroom promotes these metacognitive skills (Sasaki et al., 2018; Wenden, 1998; Zhao & Liao, 2021). The improvement in writing performance observed in the experimental group can be attributed to the enhanced metacognitive awareness and self-regulatory skills developed through the SBI intervention (Zhao & Liao, 2021). Having focused on strategic thinking and reflection, the intervention helped students develop a deeper understanding of the writing task and the cognitive processes involved. This enabled them to generate better-organized and more coherent written texts.

Moreover, the qualitative phase of the study revealed that participants reported an increased sense of autonomy after engaging in the SBI program. This suggests that the improved writing performance of the EFL learners in the current study could be attributed to their academic self-efficacy, which is a component of their belief system as self-regulated and autonomous learners (Bandura & Locke, 2003; Sasaki et al., 2018). Academic self-efficacy refers to individuals’ strong belief in their ability to succeed, and it enhances their academic motivation and performance (Trautner & Schwinger, 2020; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2008).

Furthermore, the significant improvement in motivation observed among the experimental group strongly indicates that the implementation of the SBI program had a positive effect on the students’ attitudes, interest, and engagement in writing tasks. The explicit instruction of writing strategies, complemented by regular practice and feedback, likely played a pivotal role in cultivating students’ enhanced confidence and perceived proficiency in writing. Via explicitly providing students with various writing strategies and giving them with opportunities to apply these strategies through practice and receive feedback, the SBI program might have empowered students to approach writing tasks with greater assurance. This heightened confidence and sense of competence may have contributed to their increased motivation to engage in writing activities. In fact, the systematic and structured approach of the SBI program, which focused on equipping students with metacognitive writing strategies, not only enhanced their technical skills but also positively influenced their affective aspects of writing. This suggests that the integration of metacognitive strategies into writing instruction can be a valuable approach to foster students’ motivation and engagement.

The interplay between metacognitive strategies and motivation deserves further exploration, as it can provide deeper insights into the observed results, particularly regarding the enhanced writing motivation. This aligns with previous research by Hiver et al. (2020) and Macaro (2006), emphasizing the importance of understanding the relationship between metacognitive strategies and motivation. By investigating this interplay, a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms underlying the improvement in writing motivation can be attained. The close relationship between learner strategies and motivation lies in the development of strategic plans, which are constructed based on learners’ metacognitive theories (Shin et al., 2023). Macaro (2006) highlights the strong interaction between metacognitive theories and recent models of motivation, emphasizing the critical role of goals and motivation as essential conditions for effective strategy implementation. This interconnection between metacognition and motivation has also been acknowledged by other scholars (e.g., Ushioda, 2014, 2016).

Ushioda (2016) suggests that learners need motivation not only to establish goals, exert effort, practice skills, or maintain focus but also to effectively coordinate strategic thinking processes for self-regulating their learning. Motivation becomes particularly crucial when learners encounter learning challenges and difficulties that they must overcome. Therefore, the positive findings in our study regarding improved writing motivation align with the notion that motivation plays a pivotal role in the effective utilization of metacognitive strategies. This suggests that learners who are motivated are more likely to engage in strategic thinking processes, regulate their learning, and effectively address the writing challenges they encounter.

In addition to the quantitative findings, the thematic analysis of the qualitative data provided valuable insights into the factors contributing to the improved performance and motivation in L2 writing among the experimental group students. The qualitative data revealed several key themes, including positive attitude, sense of autonomy, reflection and planning, self-evaluation, the problem-solving nature of strategy instruction, and perceived writing enhancement. The participants’ experiences with writing strategy instruction were found to have a positive impact on their attitude and sense of autonomy toward L2 writing tasks, ultimately motivating them to write better (Golparvar & Khafi, 2021; Liu et al., 2022). This aligns with the idea that when learners perceive themselves as autonomous and capable, they are more likely to engage in writing tasks with enthusiasm and commitment (Little et al., 2017).

Furthermore, the qualitative data suggested that metacognitive strategy instruction played a role in enhancing learners’ reflection, planning, and self-evaluation abilities. This improvement in metacognitive skills helped them to monitor their strategy use more effectively. These findings are consistent with previous studies that have emphasized the importance of metacognitive processes in writing instruction (Dalman & Plonsky, 2022; Liu et al., 2022). Moreover, the qualitative data supported the notion that writing strategy instruction has a problem-solving nature. The participants’ engagement with the SBI program helped them develop strategies to address their L2 writing problems, such as linguistic and organizational challenges, in a more effective manner (Liu et al., 2022). This finding is in line with Manchon et al.‘s (2007) assertion that writing strategies serve as problem-solving devices. It suggests that by providing explicit instruction on writing strategies, learners are equipped with tools to overcome difficulties and improve their writing performance (Dalman & Plonsky, 2022).

Conclusions

The present study had two main findings. First, it was revealed that SBI program within which the metacognitive strategies were explicitly instructed enhanced the writing performance of the EFL learners. Second, the findings of the current study also shed light on the fact the students who received metacognitive strategy training appeared to have enhanced their writing motivation. It might be argued that explicit instruction of metacognitive strategies in the writing course yielded significant benefits in writing motivation which contributed to better writing performance of the EFL learners. The current study contributes to the field of SBI as relatively few studies have been carried out on the effects of strategy instruction on writing performance. Moreover, to our knowledge, no previous study has investigated the effects of strategy instruction on writing motivation, an important psychological factor affecting L2 writing. The findings of the present study provided empirical evidence for the role of motivational factors in enhancing writing competencies. The integration of language learning strategies into the language curriculum should be given more consideration, given their impact on language achievement. The findings from this study can serve as a catalyst for researchers, practitioners, and teacher educators to focus more on strategy-based instruction and the explicit training of language learning strategies, particularly metacognitive ones, with the goal of enhancing learner motivation and improving their learning outcomes.

Although this study provides valuable insights into the impact of SBI on writing performance and motivation, it is important to acknowledge some limitations. Firstly, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to the utilization of a small sample size in a specific EFL context in China. Consequently, generalizing the results to a broader population should be done with caution. Future research could aim to replicate the study with larger and more diverse samples to enhance the generalizability of the findings.

Secondly, the study did not include a delayed post-test to examine the long-term effects of SBI on writing performance and achievement. Therefore, the current findings are limited to assessing the immediate effects of the intervention. Conducting a follow-up assessment to explore the sustainability of the observed improvements over an extended period would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the lasting effects of SBI. Future studies could consider incorporating delayed post-tests to investigate the durability of the observed enhancements in writing performance.

Additionally, future studies could explore the potential moderating factors that may influence the effectiveness of SBI. Factors such as learner motivation, cognitive abilities, and individual differences could be considered to gain insights into the specific conditions under which SBI is most effective. This would provide a more nuanced understanding of the potential boundary conditions and optimize the implementation of SBI in different learning contexts. Furthermore, considering the potential long-term effects of SBI, future research could incorporate delayed post-tests and follow-up assessments to assess the persistence of improvements in writing performance. This longitudinal approach would offer valuable insights into the sustainability of the benefits derived from SBI and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of its long-term impact.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Jacobs et al.’s (1981) Rubric.

Student:Category	Mark	Date:
Student:Category	Mark	Criteria
Content	25-21	EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: Knowledgeable• Substantive• hrough development of thesis• Relevant to assigned topic
	20-16	GOOD TO AVERAGE: Some knowledge of subject• Adequate range• Limited development of thesis• Mostly relevant to the topic, but lacks detail.
	15-11	FAIR TO POOR: Limited knowledge of subject• Little substance• Inadequate development of topic
	10-0	VERY POOR: Does not show knowledge of subject• Non-substantive• Non pertinent• OR not enough to evaluate
Organization	25-21	EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: Fluent expressions• Ideas clearly stated/supported• Succinct• Well-organized• Logical sequencing• cohesive
	20-16	GOOD TO AVERAGE: Somewhat choppy• Loosely organized but main ideas stand out• Limited support• Logical but incomplete sequencing
	15-11	FAIR TO POOR: Non-fluent• Ideas confused or disconnected• Lacks logical sequencing and development
	10-0	VERY POOR: Does not communicate• No organization• OR not enough to evaluate
Grammar	25-21	EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: Effective complex constructions• Few errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/ function, article, pronoun, prepositions
	20-16	GOOD TO AVERAGE: Effective but simple constructions• Minor problems in complex constructions• Several agreements, tense, number, word order/function, article, pronoun, prepositions but meaning seldom obscured
	15-11	FAIR TO POOR: Major problems in simple/complex constructions• Frequent errors in negation, tense, number, word order/ function, article, pronoun, prepositions and/ or fragments, run-ones, deletion• Meaning confused or obscured
	10-0	VERY POOR: Virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules• Dominated by errors• Does not communicate• OR not enough to evaluate
Vocabulary	15-13	EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: Sophisticated range• Effective word/ idiom choice and usage• Word for mastery• Appropriate register
	12-10	GOOD TO AVERAGE: Adequate range• Occasional errors of effective word/ idiom form, choice, usage but meaning not obscured
	9-7	FAIR TO POOR: Limited range• Frequent errors of effective word/ idiom form, choice, usage• Meaning confused or obscured
	6-0	VERY POOR: Essentially translation• Little knowledge of English vocabulary, idiom, word forms• OR not enough to evaluate
Writing mechanics	10	EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: Demonstrate mastery of conventions• Few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing
	9-8	GOOD TO AVERAGE: Occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing but meaning not obscured
	7-6	FAIR TO POOR: Frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing• Poor handwriting• Meaning confused or obscured
	5-0	VERY POOR: No mastery of conventions• Dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing• Handwriting eligible• OR not enough to evaluate

Appendix B: A Sample Lesson

Appendix C: Interview Questions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all the participants in this study.

ORCID iD

Lijuan Han

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the author, without undue reservation.

References

(2015). A study of the EFL writing of Chinese learners: A critical narrative. Changing English, 22(3), 294–306.

Allan

(2004). Oxford placement test 2. Oxford University Press.

Apple

M. T.

Da Silva

Fellner

(Eds.). (2016). L2 selves and motivations in Asian contexts (Vol. 106). Multilingual Matters.

Bandura

Locke

(2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87

Behroozian

Ghafoori

Ahangari

(2023). An explicit communication strategies instruction: Iranian EFL learners’ self-reported use of communication strategies. Language Related Research, 14(1), 219–250.

Bishop

(2001). Using quality and accuracy ratings to quantify the value added of a dictionary skills training course. Language Learning Journal, 24(1), 62–69.

Boyatzis

(1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage.

Brevik

L. M.

(2019). Explicit reading strategy instruction or daily use of strategies? Studying the teaching of reading comprehension through naturalistic classroom observation in English L2. Reading and Writing, 32(9), 2281–2310.

Chamot

A. U.

Barnhardt

El-Dinary

P. B.

Robbins

(Eds.). (1999). The learning strategies handbook. Longman.

10.

Chamot

A. U.

Harris

(Eds.). (2019). Learning strategy instruction in the language classroom: Issues and implementation. Multilingual Matters.

11.

Cohen

A. D.

(1996). Second language learning and use strategies: Clarifying the issues (Working Paper). University of Minnesota.

12.

Cohen

A. D.

(2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd ed.). Longman.

13.

Cohen

A. D.

Macaro

(2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice. Oxford University Press.

14.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, & mixed method approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

15.

Cresswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research (2nd ed.). Sage.

16.

Csizér

Tankó

(2017). English majors’ self-regulatory control strategy use in academic writing and its relation to L2 motivation. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 386–404.

17.

Dalman

Plonsky

(2022). The effectiveness of second-language listening strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211072981

18.

De Silva

(2015). Writing strategy instruction: Its impact on writing in a second language for academic purposes. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541738

19.

De Silva

Graham

(2015). The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency levels. System, 53, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.009

20.

Dornyei

(2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667343

21.

Dornyei

(2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

22.

Dornyei

MacIntyre

P. D.

Henry

(Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Multilingual Matters.

23.

Man

(2022). Person factors and strategic processing in L2 listening comprehension: Examining the role of vocabulary size, metacognitive knowledge, self-efficacy, and strategy use. System, 107, 102801.

24.

Fathi

Ahmadnejad

Yousofi

(2019). Effects of blog-mediated writing instruction on L2 writing motivation, self-efficacy, and self-regulation: A mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 159–181.

25.

Fathi

Derakhshan

Torabi

(2020). The effect of listening strategy instruction on second language listening anxiety and self-efficacy of Iranian EFL learners. Sage Open, 10(2), 2158244020933878.

26.

Fathi

Hamidizadeh

(2019). The contribution of listening strategy instruction to improving second language listening comprehension: A case of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 17–32.

27.

Fathi

Rahimi

Liu

G. Z.

(2023). A preliminary study on flipping an English as a foreign language collaborative writing course with video clips: its impact on writing skills and writing motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(2), 659–675.

28.

Gardner

R. C.

Lambert

W. E.

(1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

29.

Gass

S. M.

Mackey

(2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language acquisition. Erlbaum.

30.

Goh

(2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory, practice and research implications. Regional Language Centre Journal, 39, 188–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688208092184

31.

Goh

Taib

(2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60, 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl002

32.

Golparvar

S. E.

Khafi

(2021). The role of L2 writing self-efficacy in integrated writing strategy use and performance. Assessing Writing, 47, 100504.

33.

Graham

Macaro

(2007). Designing Year 12 strategy training in listening and writing: From theory to practice. Language Learning Journal, 35, 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730701599203

34.

Graham

Santos

Vanderplank

(2008). Listening comprehension and strategy use: A longitudinal exploration. System, 36, 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.11.001

35.

Graham

Woore

Porter

Courtney

Savory

(2020). Navigating the challenges of L2 reading: Self-efficacy, self-regulatory reading strategies, and learner profiles. The Modern Language Journal, 104(4), 693–714.

36.

Green

Oxford

(1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and sex. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587625

37.

Griffiths

Oxford

R. L.

(2014). The twenty-first century landscape of language learning strategies: Introduction to this special issue. System, 43, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.009

38.

Gunning

Oxford

R. L.

(2014). Children’s learning strategy use and the effects of strategy instruction on success in learning ESL in Canada. System, 43, 82–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.012

39.

Han

Hiver

(2018). Genre-based L2 writing instruction and writing-specific psychological factors: The dynamics of change. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.03.001

40.

Hassan

Macaro

Mason

Nye

Smith

Vanderplank

(2005). Strategy training in language learning: A systematic review of available research. London, England: Research Evidence in Education Library, EPPI-Centre, University of London.

41.

Hiver

Zhou

S. A.

Tahmouresi

Sang

Papi

(2020). Why stories matter: Exploring learner engagement and metacognition through narratives of the L2 learning experience. System, 91, 102260.

42.

Ivankova

N. V.

Creswell

J. W.

Stick

(2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260

43.

Jacobs

H. L.

Zinkgraf

S. A.

Wormuth

D. R.

Hartfiel

V. F.

Hughey

J. B.

(1981). Testing ESL composition. Newbury House.

44.

Kellogg

R. T.

(1996). A model of working memory in writing. In Levy

C. M.

Ransdell

(Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Lawrence Erlbaum.

45.

Kormos

(2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003

46.

Lan

Oxford

R. L.

(2003). Language learning strategy profiles of elementary school students in Taiwan.International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(4), 339–380. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2003.016

47.

Larsen-Freeman

(2018). Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 55–72.

48.

Little

Dam

Legenhausen

(2017). Language learner autonomy: What, why and how. Second Language Acquisition, 4(1), 1–21.

49.

Liu

G. Z.

Rahimi

Fathi

(2022). Flipping writing metacognitive strategies and writing skills in an English as a foreign language collaborative writing context: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(6), 1730–1751.

50.

Oxford

R. L.

(2014). A diary study focusing on listening and speaking: The evolving interaction of learning styles and learning strategies in a motivated, advanced ESL learner. System, 43, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.010

51.

Macaro

(2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00425.x

52.

Manchón

R. M.

(2018). Past and future research agendas on writing strategies: Conceptualizations, inquiry methods, and research findings. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 247–267.

53.

Manchon

R. M.

Roca

Larios

Murphy

(2007). A review of writing strategies: Focus on conceptualizations and impact of first language. In Cohen

A. D.

Macaro

(Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 229e249). Oxford University Press.

54.

Mastan

M. E. B.

Maarof

Embi

M. A.

(2017). The effect of writing strategy instruction on ESL intermediate proficiency learners' writing performance. Journal of Educational Research and Review, 5(5), 71–78.

55.

McMullen

M. G.

(2009). Using language learning strategies to improve the writing skills of Saudi EFL students: Will it really work? System, 37, 418–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.05.001

56.

Nguyen

T. C. L.

(2013). Strategy-based instruction: A learner-focused approach to developing learner autonomy. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457528

57.

Nguyen

Y. T. X.

X. V.

Dinh

V. T. H.

(2023). Teaching writing to young learners: Vietnamese primary school teachers’ beliefs. Language Related Research, 14(3), 191–211.

58.

Olson

C. B.

Land

(2007). A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction for English language learners in secondary school. Research in the Teaching of English, 269–303.

59.

Oxford

R. L.

(2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Pearson Education.

60.

Oxford

R. L.

(2016). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context. Taylor & Francis.

61.

Oxford

R. L.

(2017). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies: Self- Regulation in Context (2nd ed.). Routledge.

62.

Oxford

R. L.

Amerstorfer

C. M.

(Eds.). (2018). Language learning strategies and individual learner characteristics: Situating strategy use in diverse contexts. Bloomsbury.

63.

Papi

Hiver

(2020). Language learning motivation as a complex dynamic system: A global perspective of truth, control, and value. The Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 209–232.

64.

Pawlak

(2019a). Investigating language learning strategies: Prospects, pitfalls and challenges. Language Teaching Research, 25(5), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819876156

65.

Pawlak

(2019b). Grammar learning strategies as a key to mastering second language grammar: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 53(3), 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000314

66.

Piniel

Csizér

(2015). Changes in motivation, anxiety and self-efficacy during the course of an academic writing seminar. In Dörnyei

MacIntyre

P. D.

Henry

(Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 164–194). Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters.

67.

Plonsky

(2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 61(4), 993–1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00663.x

68.

Rahimi

Noroozisiam

(2013). The effect of strategies-based instruction on the improvement of EFL learners’ writing quality: A sociocultural approach. Sage Open, 3, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013494222

69.

Rao

(2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT Journal, 60, 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm002

70.

Sasaki

Mizumoto

Murakami

(2018). Developmental trajectories in L2 writing strategy use: A self-regulation perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 292–309.

71.

Saville-Troike

Barto

(2017). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.

72.

Sengupta

(2000). An investigation into the effects of revision strategy instruction on L2 secondary school learners. System, 28, 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00063-9

73.

Shin

H. W.

Sok

(2023). Role of individual differences in incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through listening to stories: Metacognitive awareness and motivation. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 61(4), 1669–1695.

74.

Teng

(2020). The role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in mediating university EFL learners’ writing performance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(5), 436–450.

75.

Trautner

Schwinger

(2020). Integrating the concepts self-efficacy and motivation regulation: How do self-efficacy beliefs for motivation regulation influence self-regulatory success? Learning and Individual Differences, 80, 101890.

76.

Ushioda

(2014). Motivational perspectives on the self in SLA: A developmental view. In Mercer

Williams

(Eds.), Multiple perspectives on the self in SLA (pp. 127–141). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783091362-010

77.

Ushioda

(2016). Language learning motivation through a small lens: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 49, 564–577. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000173

78.

Waller

Papi

(2017). Motivation and feedback: How implicit theories of intelligence predict L2 writers’ motivation and feedback orientation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.01.004

79.

Wang

(2023). A conceptual review on EFL teachers’ motivation and engagement in flipped classrooms: A social networking platform. Language Related Research, 14(3), 239–264.

80.

Wang

Tong

Guo

Zhang

(2022). Exploring the relationship between Chinese college students’ English learning strategies and their self-efficacy beliefs: A path analysis approach. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 12(2), 69–83.

81.

Wenden

A. L.

(1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.515

82.

Yapp

de Graaff

van den Bergh

(2021). Effects of reading strategy instruction in English as a second language on students’ academic reading comprehension. Language Teaching Research, 27(6), 1456–1479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820985236

83.

Zhang

L. J.

(2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 320–353. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.223352

84.

Zhang

L. J.

Saeedian

Fathi

(2022). Testing a model of growth mindset, ideal L2 self, boredom, and WTC in an EFL context. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–16.

85.

Zhang

L. J.

Thomas

Qin

T. L.

(2019). Language learning strategy research in System: Looking back and looking forward. System, 84, 87–92.

86.

Zhang

Zhou

Zhang

(2015). Chinese EFL learners’ writing strategy use in reading-to-write and reading-listening-writing tasks. TESOL International Journal, 10(2), 97–109.

87.

Zhao

C. G.

Liao

(2021). Metacognitive strategy use in L2 writing assessment. System, 98, 102472.

88.

Zimmerman

B. J.

Schunk

D. H.

(2008). Motivation. In Schunk

D. H.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research and application (pp. 1–30). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Metacognitive Writing Strategy Instruction in the EFL Context: Focus on Writing Performance and Motivation

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

Review of the Literature

Theoretical Framework

Strategies-Based Instruction in L2 Writing Research

Motivation in L2 Writing Research

The Present Study

Method

Participants

Instruments

The Writing Scoring Scale

Proficiency Test

Timed Writing Tasks

Second Language Writing Motivation Scale (SLWMS)

Procedure

Results

Research Question 1: Does Metacognitive Writing Strategy Training Improve Writing Performance of EFL Learners Significantly?

Research Question 2: Does Metacognitive Writing Strategy Training Enhance Writing Motivation of EFL Learners Significantly?

Qualitative Findings

Theme 1: Positive Attitudes and Increased Interest in Writing

Theme 2: Sense of Autonomy in Writing Tasks

Theme 3: Enhanced Reflection and Planning

Theme 4: Self-Evaluation and Quality Improvement

Theme 5: Problem-Solving Nature of Strategy Instruction

Theme 6: Improved English Writing Abilities

Theme 7: Potential Integration of SBI in Regular English Writing Classrooms

Discussion

Conclusions

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B: A Sample Lesson

Appendix C: Interview Questions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Consent to Participate

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References