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

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.

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:

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.

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.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Writing Performance.

Groups	Pre-test		Post-test
	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.

OPEN IN VIEWER

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.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics for Writing Motivation.

Groups	Pre-test		Post-test
	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).

OPEN IN VIEWER

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

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.