Understanding learners’ metacognitive experiences in learning to write in English as a foreign language: A structural equation modeling approach

Abstract

Many researchers have acknowledged the role of metacognition in facilitating learning to write in English as a foreign language (EFL). Although research on metacognition has explored learners’ metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies in the field of EFL writing, little is known about the nature of learners’ metacognitive experiences in EFL writing. To fill such an important gap, this study was designed to assess EFL learners’ metacognitive experiences before, during, and after writing. Data were collected from a total of 760 undergraduates through three self-report questionnaires and a writing task. Results from quantitative analyses showed four subcategories of EFL learners’ metacognitive experiences in writing: metacognitive feeling, metacognitive judgments/estimates, online task-specific metacognitive knowledge, and online task-specific metacognitive strategies. Based on the empirical evidence, we propose a model of metacognitive experiences in EFL writing. Theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical implications are discussed.

Full text

Frontiers in Psychology 01 frontiersin.org
Understanding learners’
metacognitive experiences in
learning to write in English as a
foreign language: A structural
equation modeling approach
QiyuSun 1, 2 and LawrenceJunZhang 2*
1 School of Foreign Language Education, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2 Faculty of Education
and Social Work, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Many researchers have acknowledged the role of metacognition in facilitating
learning to write in English as a foreign language (EFL). Although research
on metacognition has explored learners’ metacognitive knowledge and
metacognitive strategies in the field of EFL writing, little is known about the
nature of learners’ metacognitive experiences in EFL writing. To fill such an
important gap, this study was designed to assess EFL learners’ metacognitive
experiences before, during, and after writing. Data were collected from a
total of 760 undergraduates through three self-report questionnaires and a
writing task. Results from quantitative analyses showed four subcategories
of EFL learners’ metacognitive experiences in writing: metacognitive feeling,
metacognitive judgments/estimates, online task-specific metacognitive
knowledge, and online task-specific metacognitive strategies. Based on the
empirical evidence, we propose a model of metacognitive experiences in
EFL writing. Theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical implications are
discussed.
KEYWORDS
ESL/EFL writing, metacognition, English as a foreign/second language,
questionnaire development, metacognitive experiences
Introduction
Writing, as a self-planned and self-sustained process, requires a high degree of accuracy
and logic involving not only the use of vocabulary and grammar but also skills in organizing
thoughts and ideas (Zimmerman and Risemberg, 1997; Teng and Zhang, 2016, 2020; Sun
and Wang, 2020; Zhang and Cheng, 2021). e complex process of writing involves
cognitive, metacognitive, aective, and behavioral maneuvers (Teng and Zhang, 2020; Sun
etal., 2021; Chen etal., 2022; Sun and Zhang, 2022; Teng etal., 2022). Researchers have
investigated these maneuvers, of which metacognition is crucial for language learning
success, to develop learners’ writing prociency (Zhang, 2010; Zhang and Zhang, 2019;
Alfai, 2021; Zhang etal., 2021a).
TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 02 September 2022
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Hui Li,
Shanghai Normal University,
China
REVIEWED BY
Majid Farahian,
Islamic Azad University Kermanshah
Branch, Iran
Mark Feng Teng,
Beijing Normal University,
China
*CORRESPONDENCE
Lawrence Jun Zhang
lj.zhang@auckland.ac.nz
SPECIALTY SECTION
This article was submitted to
Educational Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
RECEIVED 04 July 2022
ACCEPTED 10 August 2022
PUBLISHED 02 September 2022
CITATION
Sun Q and Zhang LJ (2022) Understanding
learners’ metacognitive experiences in
learning to write in English as a foreign
language: A structural equation modeling
approach.
Front. Psychol. 13:986301.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
COPYRIGHT
© 2022 Sun and Zhang. This is an open-
access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that
the original publication in this journal is
cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not
comply with these terms.

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 02 frontiersin.org
Metacognition, as an integral component of self-regulated
learning, enables learners to monitor and control their cognitive
processes, and develop self-awareness of the learning process
(Zhang and Zhang, 2019; Sun and Zhang, 2022; Teng et al.,
2022). Metacognition comprising metacognitive knowledge,
metacognitive experiences, and metacognitive strategies, has
been widely recognized to have a bearing on the second
language (L2) learning and development (Qin and Zhang, 2019;
Zhang etal., 2019; Teng and Zhang, 2020; Wu, 2021; Zhang and
Zhang, 2022). Wenden’s (1987) early seminal work on
metacognition provided insight into L2 teaching and learning,
attracting much attention from L2 writing researchers and
instructors in their debate and discussion on the theoretical
(e.g., Lee and Mak, 2018; Zhang and Zhang, 2018, 2019) and
practical implications (e.g., Negretti and McGrath, 2018; Sun
et al., 2021; Zhang and Zhang, 2022). While much of the
research on metacognition in L2 writing has focused on the
nature and the role of metacognitive knowledge (e.g., Ruan,
2014; Teng, 2020; Teng and Zhang, 2021) and metacognitive
strategies (e.g., Qin and Zhang, 2019; Zhao and Liao, 2021;
Zhang and Zhang, 2022), there are still issues that need to
beaddressed.
Despite the facilitating role of metacognitive knowledge and
metacognitive strategies in L2 writing development, as noted
above, little attention has been paid to the nature of metacognitive
experiences in learning to write, particularly for English as a
foreign language (EFL) learners who are exposed to English in the
classroom setting. is study, situated in an EFL learning context,
attempts to ll the research gaps by assessing EFL learners’
metacognitive experiences before, during, and aer the writing
process using a structural equation modeling approach. e
ndings of this study are expected to map out EFL learners’
metacognitive experiences in writing as well as provide
pedagogical implications for EFL writing instruction.
Literature review
Metacognition and L2 writing
Metacognition refers to individuals’ self-awareness of their
own cognitive processes and their ability to organize these
processes (Flavell, 1976, 1979; Teng etal., 2021, 2022; Wu, 2021;
Zhang etal., 2021b). According to Papaleontiou-Louca (2003),
metacognition depicts not only individuals’ awareness and control
of cognitive processes but also their emotions and motivations
(see also Elides, 2017; Elides et al., 2017; Sun and Zhang,
2022). Researchers have unanimously accepted that metacognition
could monitor and control cognitive processes, reecting learners’
abilities in self-regulated learning (Flavell, 1979; Tarricone, 2011;
Zhang and Zhang, 2019; Teng etal., 2021).
Metacognition incorporates three essential components:
metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive strategies, and
metacognitive experiences (Flavell, 1979; Zhang, 2010; Teng, 2020;
Wu, 2021; Sun and Zhang, 2022; Teng and Zhang, 2022).
Metacognitive knowledge is a type of knowledge retrieved from
long-term memory for learners to know about themselves and
other cognitive processors as well as their relationships with
cognitive tasks, goals, actions, and experiences (Flavell, 1979;
Elides, 2001). Metacognitive knowledge is a fundamental
component of metacognition and a prerequisite for self-regulated
learning, consisting of person knowledge, task knowledge, and
strategy knowledge (Flavell, 1979; Zhang and Zhang, 2019).
Metacognitive strategies refer to the skills used when individuals
deliberately monitor their own cognitive progress related to
learning or fullling tasks. Metacognitive strategies comprise
planning, monitoring, and evaluating during the learning process
(Brown, 1978; Flavell, 1979; Schraw, 1998; Lee and Mak, 2018). To
enhance the language learning process, learners make use of
metacognitive strategies for “overseeing, regulating, and directing
the language learning task, and thinking about the process of
learning” (Zhang, 2010, p.321).
In addition to metacognitive knowledge and strategies,
metacognitive experiences are what the individual goes through
during a cognitive endeavor, including cognitive and aective
experiences that are online metacognitive knowledge, ideas and
beliefs, feelings, goals, and self-judgments (Flavell, 1979; Elides,
2001; Tarricone, 2011). Metacognitive experiences, the focus of
our study, involve learners’ current and ongoing/online cognition
and their emotions (Elides, 2006a, 2017; Sun etal., 2021; Sun
and Zhang, 2022). In our study, emotions are synonymous with
feelings. Metacognitive experiences related to individuals’ working
memory can happen before, during, and aer the cognitive
process, involving prospective and retrospective perspectives
(Elides, 2002a,b, 2009). Specically, metacognitive experiences,
on the one hand, are the subjective experiences of thinking ahead
to a cognitive task; on the other hand, metacognitive experiences
occur during and aer the cognitive task about what the cognition
involved (Elides, 2002b; Elides and Vlachopoulos, 2012).
In the eld of educational psychology, Elides (2002a,b)
developed a framework of metacognitive experiences comprising
three subcategories, namely, metacognitive feelings, metacognitive
judgments/estimates, and online task-specic knowledge.
Metacognitive feelings have been classied into the feeling of
diculty that occurs when a task seems too dicult (Elides,
2002a); the feeling of familiarity regarding the previous occurrence
of a stimulus and uency of processing (Nelson, 1996); the feeling
of condence denoting the feeling that individuals trust
themselves; the feeling of satisfaction when an outcome meets the
criteria regarding its quality of the answer (Elides, 2002a); and
the feeling of knowing relating to a tip-of-tongue phenomenon.
Metacognitive judgments/estimates include (1) judgment of
learning; (2) estimate of solution correctness; (3) estimate of time
expenditure; (4) estimate of eort expenditure; and (5) episodic
memory judgment (Elides, 2001, 2006a, 2009). Judgment of
learning emphasizes the judgment made by a learner in the
learning process. An estimate of solution correctness focuses on
the quality of answers; an estimate of time expenditure denotes

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 03 frontiersin.org
the time learners expect to spend on completing tasks; an
estimate of eort expenditure refers to learners’ eort allocation.
An episodic memory judgment refers to learners’ evaluation of
their memory-sourced information. Online task-specic
knowledge relates to the awareness in real time of task
characteristics and task-related knowledge about tasks and
strategies (Elides, 2001, 2002a, 2006a).
Taken together, metacognitive experiences, metacognitive
knowledge, and metacognitive strategies have interactive
relationships with each other, and there is no denite demarcation
between them (Flavell, 1979; Anderson, 2002; Elides, 2006a;
Teng, 2020). Understanding the intricate relationship among the
three components of metacognition is helpful for enhancing
learners’ learning performance (Tarricone, 2011; Zhang and
Zhang, 2019; Wu, 2021). Specically, in the process of L2 learning,
metacognitive knowledge aects learners’ metacognitive
experiences and promotes the use of cognitive and metacognitive
strategies (Garner, 1994; Lee and Mak, 2018; Zhang and Zhang,
2018, 2019); metacognitive experiences instigate the modication
of metacognitive knowledge and the application of metacognitive
strategies. In addition, metacognitive strategies accumulate to
enrich learners’ metacognitive knowledge and thus inuence their
metacognitive experiences.
Given the important role of metacognition in L2 learning,
researchers have identied the intertwined relationship between
metacognition and writing. Writing is a complex problem-solving
process in which writers conduct mental operations to achieve
writing goals (Harris etal., 2009). Understanding the relationship
between metacognition and writing provides insights into L2
writing teaching and learning, with a substantial body of
empirical research indicating that developing L2 learners’
metacognitive competence can improve their writing quality
(Yeh, 2015; Negretti and McGrath, 2018; Sun etal., 2021; Sun and
Zhang, 2022; Teng et al., 2022). Previous studies have mainly
established the basis for understanding the role of metacognitive
knowledge (e.g., Negretti and McGrath, 2018; Teng, 2020) and
metacognitive strategies (e.g., Zhang and Qin, 2018; Zhang and
Zhang, 2022) in L2 writing. Kasper (1997), for instance,
conducted an in-depth study where participants wrote short
autobiographies and completed cognitive style questionnaires to
investigate the role of metacognitive knowledge in L2 writing.
Results revealed that learners’ strategy knowledge was related to
their writing performance. Recently, Shih and Huang (2020)
investigated metacognitive strategies in a ipped classroom
setting. ey explored EFL writers’ underlying factors of
metacognitive strategy use in a university ipped classroom
through writing accounts, classroom observations, and semi-
structured interviews. Results indicated that students had ve
major metacognitive strategies: planning, self-monitoring, self-
evaluation, directed attention, and selective attention. In addition,
students’ expected learning outcomes and peer learning aected
their metacognitive strategy use.
e above studies have supported the facilitative role of
metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies in L2
writing. Some prior studies, however, have produced mixed results
on the L2 writing process as these studies were conducted in
dierent learning contexts (Karlen, 2017; Zhao and Liao, 2021;
Teng et al., 2022). In addition, metacognitive knowledge and
metacognitive strategies have not been suciently discussed,
specically in the context of EFL writing, arguably, one of the most
challenging learning settings.
Metacognitive experiences and academic
achievement
Our study attempts to contribute to the understanding of the
nature of metacognitive experiences in writing. Wereviewed prior
studies on metacognitive experiences to understand the eects of
metacognitive experiences on academic achievement in subject-
specic teaching and learning, for instance, mathematics and
L2 learning.
Elides (2002a,b) began the investigation by developing a
semantic scale exclusively measuring prospective and retrospective
metacognitive experiences in mathematics. She proposed that
metacognitive experiences incorporated metacognitive feelings,
metacognitive judgments/estimates, and online task-specic
metacognitive knowledge. Elides and her associates also
conducted a series of studies to investigate metacognitive
experiences (e.g., Elides and Vauras, 1999; Elides and
Misailidi, 2010; Elides etal., 2017), which led to a deeper and
broader understanding of metacognitive experiences in the
general learning process. Following on from Elides’ (2002a,b)
seminal work, other researchers have strenuously explored
metacognitive experiences in mathematics (e.g., Akama and
Yamauchi, 2004; Akama, 2007). Recently, Aşık and Erktin (2019),
using Elides’ (2002a,b) questionnaire, investigated the mediating
role of metacognitive experiences in the relationship between
metacognitive knowledge and mathematical problem-solving.
eir research generated six factors: problem-solving
performance, feeling of understanding, feeling of familiarity,
feeling of diculty, estimated eort, and predicted solution
correctness. ey also found students’ metacognitive experiences
aected mediating metacognitive experiences and
task performance.
Despite a range of empirical studies on metacognitive
experiences in general teaching and learning, research into
metacognitive experiences in L2 learning is rather limited. One
study on metacognitive experiences in L2 reading is Zhang’s
(2002) investigation. Zhang (2002) used a mixed-methods
approach to examine learners’ metacognitive awareness. Hefound
that learners’ condence, eectiveness, repair strategy, and
perception of diculty inuenced their performance. Some
researchers have also investigated the role of emotions in relation
to the aective dimension of metacognitive experiences in L2
learning (e.g., Choi, 2013; Jiang and Dewaele, 2019; Prior, 2019;
Zhang et al., 2022). For example, Jin and Zhang (2021) in
examining the dimension of enjoyment in the EFL learning

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 04 frontiersin.org
classroom revealed that enjoyment of EFL learning had a positive
eect on English achievement.
In the eld of L2 writing research, previous studies have
endeavored to develop L2 learners’ writing prociency from the
perspective of metacognitive experiences (Kasper, 1997; Lee and
Mak, 2018; Dong and Zhan, 2019). Wu’s (2006) research focused
specically on EFL writers’ metacognitive experiences, and not on
metacognitive strategy or knowledge, concentrating on the
aective experiences. She proposed that EFL writers’
metacognitive experiences were positive and negative feelings. In
a recent study, Sun etal. (2021) investigated EFL learners’ aer-
writing metacognitive experiences by developing a self-report
questionnaire. Results of factor analyses identied a four-factor
model: metacognitive feelings, metacognitive judgments/
estimates, online metacognitive knowledge, and online
metacognitive strategies of EFL writing. Unfortunately, they did
not map out the dynamics of EFL learners’ metacognitive
experiences in writing.
On the whole, it is obvious that learners’ metacognitive
experiences have eects on their academic achievements.
However, research on metacognitive experiences in L2 writing is
still under-researched, particularly for EFL writers who have fewer
opportunities to use English for communication. In addition,
prior studies on metacognitive experiences in L2 writing have
investigated cognitive or aective experiences, but have not
established how these aect L2 writing, or specically examined
metacognitive experiences of EFL writing in-depth in the
classroom setting. Such research gaps call for empirical evidence
of the nature of EFL learners’ metacognitive experiences
in writing.
Assessing metacognitive knowledge and
metacognitive strategies in L2 writing
Due to the close connection of metacognitive experience with
the other components of metacognition, wealso focused on prior
research on assessing metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive
strategies in L2 writing. Many studies have employed quantitative
and qualitative methods for measuring metacognitive factors in
L2 writing, such as questionnaires (e.g., Zhang and Qin, 2018) and
interviews (e.g., Ruan, 2014). For instance, Ruan (2014) employed
small-group interviews to identify the types of Chinese EFL
learners’ metacognitive awareness. Heclaimed that novice EFL
writers need to develop strategy awareness of planning, generating,
and revising. In addition to using interviews, some researchers
sought to employ questionnaires to measure L2 writers’
metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies.
Questionnaires are the most frequently employed instruments for
assessing metacognition in L2 writing to gather holistic and
comprehensive information (e.g., Zhang and Qin, 2018; Teng
etal., 2021, 2022).
Researchers have used newly developed questionnaires for
assessing metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies
in L2 writing (Hwang and Lee, 2017; Karlen, 2017; Zhang and
Qin, 2018; Teng, 2020). For example, Teng (2020) developed a
self-report instrument with 45 items to measure students’
metacognitive knowledge. e questionnaire required participants
to respond to statements on a 7-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). ree types of metacognitive
knowledge were declarative, procedural, and conditional
knowledge. e ndings of his questionnaire correspond to
Schraw’s (1998) categorization of metacognitive knowledge. In a
more recent study, Zhao and Liao (2021) developed a 6-point
Likert scale with 18 items to investigate L2 writers’ metacognitive
strategies use in an authentic writing assessment context. Results
revealed that L2 writers’ metacognitive strategies included ve
types: task interpretation, planning, translating, evaluating and
monitoring, and revising.
In sum, many existing studies have identied the nature of
metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies in L2
writing. However, there are not many studies that measure
metacognitive experiences, a less researched aspect of
metacognition, in the context of EFL writing. In addition,
researchers usually only measure metacognitive components in L2
writing at one point (i.e., aer the writing process). To date, no
measures or models have been developed to assess L2 learners’
metacognitive factors before, during, and aer the writing process,
particularly for EFL writers.
A hypothesized model of metacognitive
experiences in EFL writing
In this study, we propose a new model of EFL writing
metacognitive experiences, adapted from Elides’ (2002a,b)
taxonomy of metacognitive experiences in psychological research.
Weadd online task-specic metacognitive strategies to her model
because it strengthens the model for the EFL writing context. To
capture the nature of EFL writing metacognitive experiences,
webased on Elides’ (2002a,b) and Sun etal.’s (2021) research on
metacognitive experiences and further hypothesized that EFL
writing metacognitive experiences include four dimensions: (1)
metacognitive feelings, (2) metacognitive judgments/estimates, (3)
online task-specic metacognitive knowledge, and (4) online task-
specic metacognitive strategies.
Specically, we aligned with the rst two dimensions of
Elides’ (2002a,b) framework of metacognitive experiences (i.e.,
metacognitive feelings and metacognitive judgments/estimates).
For the third and fourth dimensions of the hypothesized model,
weadapted Elides’ (2002a,b) categorization of online task-specic
knowledge and added online task-specic metacognitive strategies.
In our hypothesized model, we renamed online task-specic
knowledge as online task-specic metacognitive knowledge
(OTSMK). We use OTSMK because Elides’ (2002a,b)
categorization of online task-specic knowledge is for general
cognitive processes, which is inadequate to describe the
complexity of EFL writing. Given the interaction and overlapping

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 05 frontiersin.org
between metacognitive knowledge, experiences, and strategies in
EFL writing, wepropose that online task-specic metacognitive
knowledge consists of person, task, and strategy knowledge.
Similarly, weadded the fourth dimension to the hypothesized
model, online task-specic metacognitive strategies, which included
planning, monitoring, and evaluating.
Here, wepoint out the dierences between online task-specic
metacognitive knowledge/strategies and metacognitive knowledge/
strategies as these constructs are similar and confusing. First,
online task-specic metacognitive knowledge and strategies
happen in real time, while metacognitive knowledge and strategies
do not occur in real time. Secondly, online task-specic
metacognitive knowledge and strategies are stored in the short-term
memory, while metacognitive knowledge/strategies accumulate in
the long-term memory. irdly, online task-specic metacognitive
knowledge and strategies are task-specic. e word “task-specic”
emphasizes the specic tasks that prompt EFL writing
metacognitive-related experiences, whereas metacognitive
knowledge and strategies are general terms.
Methods
Given that Elides (2002b, 2006b) highlights the dynamic
and multifarious nature of metacognitive experiences in the
cognitive process, the present study was designed to assess EFL
learners’ metacognitive experiences before, during, and aer the
writing process. Framed with adapted frameworks of
metacognitive experiences (Elides, 2002a,b; Sun etal., 2021) and
a hypothesized model, this study aimed to address the following
two research questions:
1. What is the taxonomy of EFL learners’ metacognitive
experiences in writing?
2. Are the factors of EFL learners’ metacognitive experiences
in writing related to their writing performance?
Participants
e participants were 760 full-time second-year non-English-
major undergraduates from seven faculties at a leading national
research university in Northeast China. e students were
recruited via convenience sampling, and their mean age was 19.69
(SD = 0.72). e reason for choosing second-year undergraduates
was because they needed to take the College English Test-Band
Four (CET-4) following the university requirements. erefore,
these students were motivated to learn how to write in EFL and
write more oen as examination preparation. All participants had
enrolled in an English writing course to prepare for CET-4. e
writing course was designed to teach students how to write in EFL
and develop their critical thinking ability.
e participants were two independent samples of 340 and
420 who had learned English as a foreign language for an average
of 11.53 (SD = 2.11) years. Mandarin Chinese was their rst
language. Of the sample of 340 participants, 196 were males
(57.6%) and 144 (42.4%) were females. ey were from the
Faculties of Earth Science (N = 96, 29.4%), Engineering (N = 33,
9.0%), Information Science (N = 34, 9.4%), Medical Science
(N = 69, 20.6%), Science (N = 55, 16.1%), and Social Science
(N = 53, 15.5%). e second sample of participants were 420
undergraduates from four faculties (Engineering N = 68, 16.3%;
Humanities N = 64, 15.2%; Information Science N = 145, 34.5%;
Science N = 143, 34.0%). Among the sample of 420 students, 269
were males (64%) and 151 were females (36%).
Instruments
Self-report questionnaires
In this study, weused three self-report questionnaires to assess
EFL learners’ metacognitive experiences before, during, and aer
the writing process. As there were no existing questionnaires
available to measure EFL learners’ metacognitive experiences
before and during the writing process, wedeveloped and validated
two questionnaires to taxonomize learners’ metacognitive
experiences: the Pre-Writing Metacognitive Experiences
Questionnaire (PWMEQ) and the During-Writing Metacognitive
Experiences Questionnaire (DWMEQ). In addition, weadopted
a well-established scale to assess EFL learners’ post-writing
metacognitive experiences.
The pre-writing metacognitive experiences
questionnaire
e PWMEQ was developed following Dörnyei and Taguchi’s
(2009) rationale for questionnaire development: item generation,
initial piloting, and psychometric evaluation. e process of item
generation originated from consulting the existing literature (e.g.,
Elides, 2002a,b; Zhang and Qin, 2018) and conducting focus
group interviews. Wereviewed literature related to researching the
construct of metacognitive experiences, the development of self-
report instruments to measure metacognition, and the role of
metacognitive experiences in EFL writing. Twenty EFL learners’
who were from diverse faculties were invited to describe their
learning-to-write experiences. Based on existing literature and
learners’ authentic experiences, wegenerated 38 items related to
EFL learners’ pre-writing metacognitive experiences.
Once a preliminary dra of the PWMEQ was completed
based on the literature review and interviews, weinvited the 20
students to check the clarity and readability. We reworded the
questionnaire items with reference to students’ feedback. For
example, we revised three double-barreled items. Regarding
psychometric evaluation, two experts in the eld of L2 writing and
educational psychology were invited to scrutinize the items. is
procedure resulted in eliminating four items that overlapped or
did not match the construct in this study. e revised version of
the PWMEQ was a 6-point Likert scale with 34 items, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). e PWMEQ

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 06 frontiersin.org
included two sections: students’ demographic information and
their pre-writing metacognitive experiences (see
Supplementary Appendix A). e questionnaire was developed
and administered in English as the participants have a good
command of English vocabulary. Translation of questionnaires
from English to Chinese might cause slippage.
The during-writing metacognitive experiences
questionnaire
e DWMEQ was developed to evaluate EFL learners’ during-
writing metacognitive experiences (see Supplementary Appendix B).
e same procedure was conducted with the DWMEQ as with the
PWMEQ: item generation, initial piloting, and psychometric
evaluation. On the basis of literature review and focus group
interviews, we generated 45 items pertaining to EFL learners’
during-writing metacognitive experiences. Aer initial piloting
and psychometric evaluation, the revised version of the DWMEQ
was a 6-point Likert scale with 42 items, rating from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
The post-writing metacognitive experiences
questionnaire
We used the EFL Learners’ Writing Metacognitive
Experiences Questionnaire (EFLLWMEQ), which was a 16-item
scale to assess students’ post-writing metacognitive experiences
in an EFL learning context (Sun etal., 2021). e questionnaire
included four subcategories of post-writing metacognitive
experiences: metacognitive feelings (Items 1, 2, 3, and 11),
metacognitive estimates (Items 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16), online
task-specic metacognitive knowledge (Items 8, 9, and 10), and
online task-specic metacognitive strategies (Items 4, 5, 6, and 7).
Sun etal. (2021) reported that the EFLLWMEQ was reliable and
valid. e internal reliability coecient values ranged from 0.70
for online task-specic metacognitive knowledge to 0.85 for
metacognitive estimates. In our study, the EFLLWMEQ was
labeled as the POWMEQ. Supplementary Appendix C lists the
items of the POWMEQ.
Writing test
A test of argumentative writing was used to examine EFL
learners’ writing performance. e writing task (see
Supplementary Appendix D) was an argumentative writing task
with a given topic adapted from the CET-4. Argumentation is a
typical genre used in universities with which students frequently
engage, and in the Chinese education system, it is used as the
writing subtest of English prociency tests, such as the CET and
the Test for English Majors. is test form is considered eective
for evaluating students’ writing performance based on their
linguistic competence, critical thinking, and ideas articulation
(Hirose, 2003; Teng and Zhang, 2016).
In our study, 420 students were invited to write at least 150
words to address the topic within 30 min in the classroom setting,
and then their writing scripts were evaluated by iWrite. iWrite, a
web-based automated evaluation tool specially designed for
Chinese EFL learners, was used to examine students’ overall
writing performance.1 e reliability of iWrite and manual
marking was 0.90 (Li and Tian, 2018). iWrite generates an overall
score for an essay regarding ve areas: vocabulary, sentence,
organization, content, and mechanics.
Data collection
At the beginning of our study, 340 students were invited to
complete the PWMEQ and the DWMEQ. The two
questionnaires, in the traditional paper-and-pencil format,
were completed by the participants in the classroom, during
an English writing session to ensure authentic context-based
information, and to avoid any self-selection bias of online
surveys (Dewaele, 2018). It took participants approximately
15–20 min to complete the two questionnaires. Data collected
from the PWMEQ and the DWMEQ were used for exploratory
factor analysis (EFA).
By the end of the semester, another sample of 420
participants was invited to complete the three questionnaires
(i.e., the PWMEQ, DWMEQ, and POWMEQ). On the rst day,
all participants were asked to complete the PWMEQ. On the
second day, participants were required to nish the writing task
within 30 min and complete the DWMEQ in the classroom
setting. Aer the writing test, participants were invited to
complete the POWMEQ. It took participants around 25–30 min
to complete all three questionnaires. In this study,
we administered three questionnaires instead of using one
questionnaire with three writing stages. is is because students
might be fatigued when they need to complete a long
questionnaire and a writing task simultaneously. It would take
students around 1 h to complete the three questionnaires and
the writing task. To this end, we administered three
questionnaires separately.
Data analysis
Exploratory factor analysis
Data collected from the PWMEQ and the DWMEQ were
analyzed through a series of exploratory factor analyses (EFA)
conducted in IBM SPSS Version 26.0. EFA is a useful data
reduction technique to detect the latent structure of a relatively
large set of variables (Allen et al., 2014; Field, 2018).
We employed principal axis factoring (PAF) analysis with
direct oblimin rotation to investigate the underlying structures
of the two questionnaires (see Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007 for
details). Given that the first round of the sample size was over
300, the cut-off value for a significant factor loading in our
study was set at 0.32.
1 http://iwrite.unipus.cn/

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 07 frontiersin.org
Confirmatory factor analysis
Conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on a
sample of 420 participants to cross-validate the measurement
model of metacognitive experiences in EFL writing. CFA with
Maximum likelihood (ML) estimation was run with IBM SPSS
AMOS Version 26.0 to examine the factorial structure
underlying the PWMEQ, DWMEQ, and POWMEQ. e model
t was assessed using six indices: the value of the ratio of χ2
divided by its degree of freedom (χ
2
/df), comparative t index
(CFI), the goodness of t index (GFI), Tucker and Lewis
coecient (TLI), root means square’s error of approximation
(RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR).
According to Hu and Bentler (1999) and Kline (2015), Table1
shows the threshold of each model t index indicating an
acceptable model t.
Pearson product–moment correlation
e Pearson product–moment correlation is a statistical
technique to measure the strength of a linear correlation between
two variables. In this study, this method was performed to analyze
the correlation between EFL learners’ metacognitive experiences
in writing and their writing performance. e Pearson
product–moment correlation coecient (r) shows the strength of
the association (Field, 2018).
Results
Factor structures of the three
questionnaires
Findings from questionnaire on pre-writing
metacognitive experiences
Descriptive statistical analysis demonstrated that the mean
scores (M) of responses to the 34 items of the PWMEQ ranged
between 3.05 and 4.82, with standard deviations (SD) ranging
from 1.00 to 1.59. e values for skewness and kurtosis were
within cut-o values, indicating that all the items in the PWMEQ
were normally distributed. Results showed that the KMO value
was 0.819 which exceeded the recommended minimum value of
0.60 (Kaiser, 1974), and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954)
was signicant (p < 0.001). e KMO measure and Bartlett’s test
(KMO = 0.819; χ2 = 3444.464, df = 561, p < 0.001) indicated that the
correlations between items were sucient to conduct
EFA. Secondly, the inspection of the correlation matrix of
questionnaire items indicated that the PWMEQ was suitable for
EFA. irdly, the initial communalities indicated that the initial
communalities of all items were above 0.20 except for Item 9.
us, Item 9 was removed from further analysis.
We adopted multiple criteria to determine which factors of the
PWMEQ could be retained based on existing literature (e.g.,
Pallant, 2016; Field, 2018). Weused Kaiser’s (1960) eigenvalues-
greater-than-one (K1) criterion and the scree plot to extract the
number of factors. e scree plot, especially the cut-o point, is a
reliable technique for factor extraction when the sample size is
larger than 200 (Stevens, 1992). As the sample of participants’ size
at this stage of the scale development was 310, the scree plot is a
reliable approach. Parallel analysis was also adopted to retain
factors (Pallant, 2016).
Following the extraction methods, a ve-factor scale with 20
items was generated, accounting for 57.09% of the variance, which
is considered satisfactory in social science research (Hair etal.,
2010). Items with factor loadings >0.32 and items with no cross-
loadings were retained. A total of 14 items (Items 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,
14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25) were excluded from further
analysis. e communalities of all extracted variables were higher
than 0.30, which revealed that the extracted factors accounted for
a sucient proportion of the variables’ variance (Pallant, 2016).
Table 2 presents the results of EFA and the reliability of
the PWMEQ.
CFA was employed to check the construct validity of the
PWMEQ. All assumptions for conducting CFA were examined,
and no multivariate outliers were detected through the
computation of Mahalanobis distance (Tabachnick and Fidell,
2007; Kline, 2015). Initial CFA results, based on goodness-of-t
indices, indicated an overall inadequate model t (χ2 = 263.256;
TABLE1 Goodness of fit indices.
Name
of
index
χ2/df RMSEA GFI CFI TLI SRMR
Cut-o
points
<3.0 <0.06 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 <0.08
TABLE2 Results of EFA and the reliability of the PWMEQ.
Factor
(eme)
Item Factor loading
1 2 3 4 α
PWMEQ-
Factor 1
Item27 0.836 0.832
Item28 0.812
Item29 0.762
Item26 0.651
Item30 0.457
Item16 0.339
PWMEQ-
Factor 2
Item33 0.733 0.684
Item31 0.693
Item32 0.528
Item13 0.408
PWMEQ-
Factor 3
Item12 0.547 0.607
Item6 0.535
Item10 0.500
Item34 0.479
PWMEQ-
Factor 4
Item19 −0.761 0.693
Item18 −0.645
Item17 −0.530
Items with a factor loading of 0.32 or greater are included; α, Cronbach’s alpha;
PWMEQ, pre-writing metacognitive experiences questionnaire.

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 08 frontiersin.org
df = 97; p < 0.001; χ2/df = 2.714; TLI = 0.880; CFI = 0.903;
RMSEA = 0.072; SRMR = 0.0666). In reviewing parameters of
covariance, wenoticed that covariance between Item 29 and 30 (e
29 and e 30) was large. Despite the small dierence, Item 29 and
Item 30 were both relevant to feelings of diculty in writing
content; error correlations between Item 29 and Item 30
were included.
In reference to the convergent validity of the PWMEQ, the
recommended value of standardized regression weights (i.e.,
factor loading) adopted in this research was 0.50 (Raykov and
Marcoulides, 2008; Awang, 2012). Due to the minimum item
factor loading requirement for each factor, Items 6, 10, 12, and 34
were eliminated. Item 32 was also removed as the factor loading
(0.32) was smaller than the cut-o point of 0.50. e CFA results
of 12-item scale tted the data well with χ2 = 145.042; df = 50;
p < 0.001; χ
2
/df = 2.901; TLI = 0.911; CFI = 0.933; RMSEA = 0.066;
SRMR = 0.0583. Figure 1 presents results for the three-factor
correlated model of the PWMEQ. All 12-item parameter estimates
were signicant at p < 0.001, and standardized estimates loading
were generally higher than the benchmark 0.50, showing a large
eect size (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2008).
e results of CFA cross-validated the structure of the
PWMEQ. ree factors were generated: feeling of diculty,
judgments of good writing, and pre-writing metacognitive
strategies.
Feeling of diculty
Factor One was feeling of diculty, which refers to EFL
learners’ feeling of diculty in learning to write. e rst factor
comprised six items (Items 16, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30). Of these six
items, students’ feeling of diculty was related to grammar use
(Item 27), content (Items 28, 29, and 30), and vocabulary use
(Items 26 and 16). Referring to Elides’ (2002a,b) taxonomy of
metacognitive experiences, the rst factor, aective experiences,
is a subcategory of metacognitive feelings. Before writing, students
drew on previous writing experiences and experienced negative
metacognitive feelings. Findings from extant studies have
illustrated that positive emotions can assist the process of language
teaching and learning (Dewaele and Alfawzan, 2018; Richards,
2020). However, learners’ feelings of diculty impede the uency
of problem-solving processes (Elides, 2006a; Elides and
Vlachopoulos, 2012).
Judgments of good writing
e second factor was labeled as judgments of good writing,
involving three items: EFL learners’ judgments of good writing
from the perspectives of content (Item 33), vocabulary use (Item
31), and grammar correctness (Item 13). Students had been taught
linguistic knowledge in the EFL learning context. In the Chinese
EFL learning context, aected by Confucian values, teachers are
recognized as authorities and experts to guide their students’
learning process in the classroom setting (Zhang, 2002; Hu, 2014).
Teachers have taught students vocabulary use and grammar
correctness of EFL writing. As such, Chinese EFL learners pay
more attention to linguistic knowledge in writing performance,
compared to what they give to the organization. e nding of our
research aligns with Zhang’s (2010) argument that global aspects
such as organization seemed to bemissing for EFL learners.
Pre-writing metacognitive strategies
e third dimension of the PWMEQ including three items
(Items 17, 18, and 19) was named as pre-writing metacognitive
strategies, referring to the strategies students intended to use in
their writing process premised on their previous writing
experiences. Before composing, students retrieved
metacognitive strategies from their previous experiences and
tried to deploy those strategies in new writing tasks. Some
previous studies have shown that learners’ prior experiences
map onto the new situation and enable learners to prepare for
new tasks (Taylor and Drury, 2004). is result reveals that
students’ prior experiences could provide insight into
developing EFL writing instruction. Furthermore, the nding
of this dimension also showed EFL writers’ metacognitive
awareness of strategy use, which is consistent with Zhang and
Qin’s (2018) argument that EFL learners orchestrate discourse
planning and local lexical planning.
Findings from questionnaire on during-writing
metacognitive experiences
Descriptive statistical analyses demonstrated that the mean
scores of 42 items ranged from 2.90 (SD = 0.93) to 4.88 (SD = 1.48).
e values of skewness and kurtosis were within the cut-o points
range of |3.0| and |8.0| respectively (Kline, 2015), indicating the
data were normally distributed. Moreover, assumptions of
normality, linearity, and homogeneity of the sample were also
examined, and no outliers were found.
e KMO value was 0.908, exceeding the recommended value
of 0.6 (Kaiser, 1974) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett,
1954) reached statistical signicance (χ2 = 5324.213, df = 861,
p < 0.001). e initial communalities of all items of the DWMEQ
ranged from 0.264 to 0.670, which was higher than the benchmark
value of 0.20 (Allen etal., 2014). Cronbach’s alpha coecients for
the ve factors ranged from 0.677 for DWMEQ-Factor 3 to 0.874
for DWMEQ-Factor1. Table 3 shows the EFA results of each
subscale and internal reliabilities of the DWMEQ.
CFA was adopted to examine the ve-factor model that was
generated as a hypothesized model from EFA. e CFA results
(χ2 = 416.990; df = 175; p < 0.001; χ2/df = 2.383; TLI = 0.877;
CFI = 0.898; RMSEA = 0.056; SRMR = 0.0667) for the ve-factor
model with the 21 items suggested that the model t was not fully
satisfactory. With reference to standardized regression weights,
the values of factor loading for Factor 3 of the DWMEQ including
Items 25, 26, 27, and 21 were not greater than the benchmark
values of 0.50 of factor loadings, so those four items were deleted
from the DWMEQ. e modication indices showed that better
model t could beachieved with the removal of Item 40 as the
factor loading was much smaller than the cut-o point of 0.50.
e nal CFA results of four-factor correlated model of the

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 09 frontiersin.org
DWMEQ revealed an acceptable model t with χ2 = 212.439;
df = 98; p < 0.001; χ2/df = 2.168; TLI = 0.931; CFI = 0.943;
RMSEA = 0.052; SRMR = 0.0474 (Figure2).
e results of CFA provided substantial evidence for the
factorial structure of the DWMEQ, entailing estimate of eort
expenditure, negative metacognitive feelings, positive
metacognitive feelings, and estimate of solution correctness.
Estimate of eort expenditure
e rst factor of the DWMEQ was labeled as estimate of
eort expenditure and was composed of seven items (Items 11, 12,
13, 18, 19, 38, and 41). e factor denoted students’ eort
allocation concerning lexical and syntactic use, grammar
correctness, organization, and task knowledge. is result lends
support to some existing studies that L2 learners have clear
metacognitive awareness about their learning process, including
with their L2 writing (Ruan, 2014; Amini etal., 2020). e results
of our study enrich the framework of metacognitive experiences
in EFL writing as described by Elides’ (2002a,b) taxonomy of
metacognitive experiences.
Negative metacognitive feelings
e second factor of during-writing metacognitive
experiences was dened as negative metacognitive feelings
comprising three items (Items 1, 2, and 3). is factor depicts EFL
writers’ disengagement feelings as linked to anxiety, chaos, and
aversion during the writing process. Given the complexity of
writing, these negative feelings may impede students’ successful
writing performance. Previous studies have found that learners’
negative emotions have an adverse impact on their writing
FIGURE1
A three-factor correlated model of pre-writing metacognitive experiences. FD, feeling of diculty; JGW, judgments of good writing; PWMS, pre-
writing metacognitive strategies.

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 10 frontiersin.org
performance (e.g., Zabihi, 2018; Jin and Zhang, 2021). is nding
may provide insights into EFL writing instruction that is
inuenced by negative metacognitive feelings.
Positive metacognitive feelings
e third factor of the DWMEQ was positive metacognitive
feelings comprising three items (Items 4, 5, and 7). is nding
aligns with Elides’ (2002a,b) theoretical framework of
metacognitive experiences, which provides insights that are
applicable to understanding the kinds of feelings EFL writers
produce during the writing process. What is noteworthy here is
that EFL learners experienced feelings of condence and
familiarity as well. e nding is consistent with previous research
on metacognitive experiences in problem-solving (e.g., Elides,
2006a,b, 2009). Positive aects provide resources for eort
exertion (Elides et al., 2017). In a similar vein, positive
metacognitive feelings play a key role in writing performance.
Estimate of solution correctness
Factor four of during-writing metacognitive experiences,
estimate of solution correctness, included three items (Items 14,
15, and 31), which refers to students’ estimates of their writing
quality in the process of composing. is result indicates that,
while writing, students scrutinize and monitor their use of lexicon,
syntax, and grammar use in writing, paying attention to linguistic
accuracy not only aer the writing process but also during the
process of composing. is nding showed that EFL learners had
the ability to judge their writing performance (i.e., the quality of
their answers) in EFL writing. As previous research has
demonstrated, our nding indicates the benets of self-reection
in improving learning outcomes (Akama and Yamauchi, 2004;
Negretti, 2017).
Findings from questionnaire on post-writing
metacognitive experiences
In line with Sun etal. (2021), a four-factor model of post-
writing metacognitive experiences was examined. e model
adequately ts the data (χ2 = 239.359; df = 98; p < 0.001;
χ2/df = 2.442; TLI = 0.908; CFI = 0.925; RMSEA = 0.059;
SRMR = 0.0530), including metacognitive estimates, positive
metacognitive feelings, online task-specic metacognitive
knowledge, and online task-specic metacognitive strategies.
Figure 3 shows the standardized regression weights of the
measurement model.
Relationships between EFL learners’
metacognitive experiences and their writing
performance
Correlations between the 11 factors of EFL writing
metacognitive experiences and writing performance were
examined. e Pearson correlation coecients in Table4 suggest
that EFL learners’ writing performance was weakly correlated with
estimate of eort expenditure (r = 0.045), positive metacognitive
experiences (during-writing, r = 0.096), estimates of EFL writing
(r = 0.050), and online task-specic metacognitive knowledge
(r = 0.203). e signicant correlations conrmed the predictive
validity of the questionnaires.
Discussion
is study was designed to assess EFL learners’ metacognitive
experiences before, during, and aer the writing process. Results
of CFA indicated that EFL writing metacognitive experiences
could becategorized into 11 subcategories. On the basis of the
empirical evidence, wepropose a model to conceptualize EFL
writers’ metacognitive experiences including metacognitive
feelings, metacognitive judgments/estimates, online task-specic
metacognitive knowledge, and online task-specic metacognitive
strategies (Figure4).
Metacognitive feelings
EFL writers experienced both positive and negative
metacognitive feelings, as expected of the aective dimension of
metacognitive experiences. is nding adds new dimensions to
metacognition studies by gathering reliable evidence of EFL
writers’ aective experiences. Our study indicates that
metacognitive experiences encompass both aective and cognitive
TABLE3 Results of EFA and the reliability of the DWMEQ.
Factor
(eme)
Item Factor loading
1 2 3 4 5 α
DWMEQ-
Factor 1
Item 12 0.705 0.874
Item 41 0.671
Item 18 0.586
Item 19 0.571
Item 11 0.494
Item 38 0.493
Item 13 0.394
DWMEQ-
Factor 2
Item 3 0.792 0.691
Item 1 0.689
Item 2 0.580
Item 40 0.410
DWMEQ-
Factor 3
Item 25 0.743 0.677
Item 26 0.581
Item 27 0.490
Item 21 0.442
DWMEQ-
Factor 4
Item 5 0.786 0.695
Item 4 0.708
Item 7 0.441
DWMEQ-
Factor 5
Item 14 −0.880 0.693
Item 15 −0.615
Item 31 −0.404
Items with a factor loading of 0.32 or greater are included; α, Cronbach’s alpha;
DWMEQ, during-writing metacognitive experiences.

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 11 frontiersin.org
experiences, corroborating Flavell’s (1979) and Elides’ (2002a,b)
theoretical models. ese empirical ndings support Elides
etal.’s (2017) proposition that metacognition and aect overlap
rather than exist in two distinct strands. Furthermore, ndings
revealed that metacognitive feelings happened before, during, and
aer the writing process. ese empirical results of our study, in
line with Elides’ (2002a,b, 2006a) theoretical argument that
metacognitive experiences are dynamic, enrich understandings of
EFL learners’ metacognitive feelings in learning to write.
What is noteworthy in our study is that data collected from
the three self-report questionnaires provide a comprehensive
picture of metacognitive feelings. Results of factor analyses
showed EFL writers experienced feelings of diculty, satisfaction,
familiarity, and condence, reecting Elides’ (2002a,b, 2006b,
FIGURE2
A four-factor correlated model of during-writing metacognitive experiences. EEE, estimate of eort expenditure; NMF, negative metacognitive
feelings; PMF, positive metacognitive feelings; ESC, estimate of solution correctness.

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 12 frontiersin.org
2008) theoretical claims and adding to her models. e ndings
of metacognitive feelings in our study lend empirical support to
investigations into the role of aective experiences in the learning
process, in which metacognitive feelings were found to aect
learners’ academic performance (Zhang, 2002; Wu, 2006; Elides
and Vlachopoulos, 2012; Dong and Zhan, 2019; Sun and Zhang,
2022). Similar to some prior studies on L2 learning (Zhang and
Zhang, 2013; Jiang and Dewaele, 2019; Jin and Zhang, 2021), the
ndings of our study reveal that these metacognitive feelings may
support learning to write in EFL. Dong and Zhan (2019) also
found EFL learners’ positive metacognitive feelings exerted a
positive eect on their writing scores, suggesting there is a need
for instructors and EFL learners to develop positive metacognitive
feelings about writing. For example, instructors’ classroom talk
FIGURE3
A four-factor correlated model of post-writing metacognitive experiences. EEFLW, estimates of EFL writing; PMF, positive metacognitive feelings;
OTSMK, online task-specific metacognitive knowledge; OTSMS, online task-specific metacognitive strategies.

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 13 frontiersin.org
could focus on positive aective language, such as “notice how
youare building your writing skills every time youtake on another
writing task.”
Whereas such talk is likely to be helpful in most
classrooms, wesuggest that it is particularly helpful in Chinese
EFL writing pedagogy. Students’ metacognitive feelings are
normally ignored by researchers and instructors in the
Confucian culture learning contexts because teachers are
considered the authorities (Kennedy, 2002), and their praise
or explicit acknowledgment of development is likely to have
greater impacts. In this regard, the influence of the teachers’
role in EFL writing, such as their feedback and teaching
approaches, are likely to affect writers’ affective experiences.
Findings of affective experiences in our study indicate that
EFL writing instructors’ role in establishing positive emotions
is crucial in learning to write.
TABLE4 Pearson’s correlation coecients on the 11 factors of metacognitive experiences and writing performance.
FD JGW PWMS EEE NMF PMF
(during
writing)
ESC EEFLW PMF
(aer
writing)
OTSMK OTSMS
Writing
performance
Pe arso n’s
correlation
0.016 −0.015 0.058 0.045*0.076 0.096** 0.045 0.050*0.093 0.203** 0.118
FD, feeling of diculty; JGW, judgments of good writing; PWMS, pre-writing metacognitive strategies; EEE, estimate of eort expenditure; NMF, negative metacognitive feelings; PMF,
positive metacognitive feelings (during writing); ESC, estimate of solution correctness; EEFLW, estimates of EFL writing; PMF, positive metacognitive feelings (aer writing); OTSMK,
online task-specic metacognitive knowledge; OTSMS, online task-specic metacognitive strategies. *p < 0.05 (2-tailed), **p < 0.01 (2-t ailed).
FIGURE4
A model of EFL learners’ metacognitive experiences in writing.

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 14 frontiersin.org
Metacognitive judgments/estimates
e second dimension, metacognitive judgments/estimates,
aligning with Elides’ (2002a,b) framework from the perspective
of cognitive experiences, consisted of (1) judgments of learning to
write in EFL; (2) estimate of solution correctness; (3) estimate of
time expenditure, and (4) estimate of eort expenditure. Similar
to metacognitive feelings, metacognitive judgments/estimates
occurred before, during, and aer the writing process. ere were
relationships among EFL writers’ judgments of good writing
(pre-writing), estimate of eort expenditure (during-writing), and
estimates of EFL writing (post-writing). EFL writers who can
accurately judge good EFL writing are likely to have accurate
estimates of their eort expenditure to complete writing tasks;
they are likely, also, and to accurately calibrate their writing
performance aer nishing writing tasks.
The first subcategory of metacognitive judgments/
estimates was judgments about learning to write in
EFL. Quantitative results of EFL writers’ responses to the
PWMEQ indicated their reported judgments of what good
writing was, including vocabulary use, sentence structures,
grammar correctness, and logical flow. In addition,
participants in reporting their estimate of solution correctness
during and after the writing process focused predominantly
focusing on their linguistic performance, corroborating from
a theoretical perspective, Efklides’ (2002a,b) taxonomy of
metacognitive experiences. Participants self-judged their
writing processes by checking linguistic accuracy and logical
content. After completing writing tasks, they reported
comprehensive estimates of their EFL writing performance,
including vocabulary use, sentence structure, grammar
correctness, logic of writing content, and their time
expenditure, as noted in previous studies on L2 writing
(Wong, 1999; Weigle, 2005; Zhang etal., 2014). Writing has
been recognized as a hybrid of cognitive and metacognitive
activity (Flower and Hayes, 1981), with metacognition
generally including both self-appraisal and self-management.
Participants in our study tended to have an awareness of self-
evaluation to improve their writing performance. Hayes’
(2012) cognitive model of writing emphasizes the crucial role
of metacognition in writing; the findings of our study likewise
reveal the importance of developing EFL writers’ awareness of
metacognitive estimates.
EFL writers’ estimate of time expenditure was apparent in
the examination situation. Consistent with Efklides’ (2002a,b)
framework of metacognitive experiences, EFL writers paid
attention to the time needed for completing a writing task, due
possibly to the prevalence of an examination culture in the
Chinese EFL context. EFL writers in this study were likely to
becrucially aware of time expenditure, ensuring that they
apportioned their time appropriately, as they would take
CET. Participants also demonstrated estimating their
expenditure of effort (i.e., effort allocation) with reference to
personal knowledge, vocabulary use, organization, and task
requirements. Drawing on their previous experiences, for
example, what they had learned and used in learning to write
when composing their writing. The findings of our study
support the results of previous studies which found that L2
writers, who were aware of what information could beused to
accomplish writing tasks, were more likely to perform
successfully in completing the tasks (Anderson, 2003; Negretti,
2012; Ruan, 2014).
Online task-specific metacognitive
knowledge
e third dimension, online task-specic metacognitive
knowledge related to person, task, and strategy knowledge, is
retrieved specically from working memory. e ndings of our
study also demonstrated that EFL learners’ online task-specic
metacognitive knowledge occurred before, during, and aer the
writing process. is dimension resonates with Elides’ (2002a,b)
framework of metacognitive experiences regarding online task-
related knowledge. It is noteworthy that participants also reported
their person and strategy knowledge in EFL writing. ese results
reveal evidence in our study that is congruent with existing studies
on general metacognitive knowledge in L2 writing (Victori, 1999;
Negretti and Kuteeva, 2011; Negretti and McGrath, 2018; Ten g,
2020), online task-specic metacognitive knowledge playing a
pivotal role in EFL writing.
Online task-specific metacognitive
strategies
Whereas Elides (2002a,b) proposed three subcategories of
metacognitive experiences in the cognitive process, a novel
contribution of our study is that the quantitative results enable
us to propose a fourth dimension of EFL writing metacognitive
experiences, i.e., online task-specic metacognitive strategies.
Demarcation of metacognitive components can bearbitrary
because, in the process of writing, metacognitive experiences,
metacognitive knowledge, and metacognitive strategies are
intertwined (Lee and Mak, 2018). However, Elides (2002a,b)
did not take online task-specic metacognitive strategies into
consideration even though these strategies were crucial,
particularly in the process of EFL writing. erefore, in the
model of EFL writing metacognitive experiences, the ndings
enabled us to propose online task-specic metacognitive
strategies.
In our study, participants reported three subcategories of
online task-specic metacognitive strategies: planning,
monitoring, and evaluating, which have also been reported in
previous research on metacognitive strategies in L2 learning (Bai
etal., 2014; De Silva and Graham, 2015; Amini etal., 2020; Zhao
and Liao, 2021). EFL writers in this study tended to plan before
writing and monitor their writing process and evaluate their

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 15 frontiersin.org
language use aer nishing writing tasks; it is noted that online
task-specic metacognitive strategies can also be conscious
processes. ey did not, however, tend to self-evaluate their ideas
or thoughts much. ese participants reported they paid attention
to error correction in examinations.
Taken together, the results of EFL writers’ perceived
metacognitive experiences not only provide empirical evidence
for Elides’ (2002a,b) framework of metacognitive experiences
but also enrich the understanding of EFL writing metacognitive
experiences. e results of our study captured the way that EFL
learners’ metacognitive experiences happened before, during, and
aer the writing process.
Conclusion
Conceptualized in the frameworks of metacognitive
experiences, this study used a quantitative approach to assess EFL
learners’ metacognitive experiences before, during, and aer the
writing process. e results provided empirical evidence on the
taxonomy of EFL learners’ metacognitive experiences:
metacognitive feelings, metacognitive judgments/estimates,
online task-specic metacognitive knowledge, and online task-
specic metacognitive knowledge. Our study contributes to a
better understanding of EFL learners’ metacognitive experiences
before, during, and aer the writing process.
e ndings might have theoretical, methodological, and
pedagogical implications. eoretically, this study contributes to
advancing the eld of EFL writing research by applying the
framework of metacognitive experiences from educational
psychology to the study of EFL writing. We propose a four-
dimension EFL writing metacognitive experiences model. From a
methodological perspective, the two newly developed
questionnaires (i.e., the PWMEQ and the DWMEQ) were
designed and validated, providing a new method for assessing EFL
learners’ metacognitive experiences before and during the
writing process.
e model of EFL writing metacognitive experiences
proposed in this study provides pedagogical implications for
EFL instructors and syllabus designers for improving learners’
writing performance and developing self-regulatory
competence. First, the two newly developed questionnaires
contributed by our study might beadopted as self-assessment
tools to measure the richness of EFL writers’ metacognitive
experiences. Based on the scores calculated from the three
questionnaires, students can adjust and reconstruct their
metacognitive experiences to expedite their learning-to-write
processes. As part of improving teaching practice, the three
questionnaires could also beused to diagnose EFL writers’
metacognitive experiences before the intervention, thus
providing insights into how EFL writing could betaught to
students. Inviting students to undertake this self-assessment
would alert them to metacognitive experiences as another factor
inuencing their learning of EFL writing. Secondly, the ndings
of this research reveal the potential of considering EFL learners’
psychological dimensions such as metacognitive feelings in
curriculum design and instructional practices.
Although rich data have been collected in this study, some
limitations still remain. First, second-year undergraduates were
recruited from only one university in mainland China. As they
were preparing for CET-4, these participants were strongly
motivated to learn to write in EFL. us, the ndings from this
research may not bebroadly generalized and applicable in L2 and
other EFL writing contexts where there is less motivation. It is
recommended that future research is undertaken in dierent
learning contexts to assess learners’ metacognitive experiences in
writing. In addition, weonly adopted questionnaires to assess
learners’ metacognitive experiences in writing. As is understood,
self-report instruments cannot capture the dynamic nature of
metacognitive components of the complex L2 writing process.
Future research is needed to employ multiple methods. For
example, researchers can employ interviews and think-
aloud protocols.
Author’s note
QS has recently completed her PhD in Education (Applied
Linguistics and TESOL) at the Faculty of Education and Social
Work, the University of Auckland, Auckland, NewZealand. She
has just started her rst academic job as a lecturer/assistant
professor at the School of Foreign Language Education, Jilin
University, China. Her research interests include second
language acquisition, especially L2 written language acquisition,
ESL/EFL writing, and metacognition in language learning. Her
publications have appeared in Language Teaching Research
(Sage), Current Psychology (Springer Nature), and Frontiers in
Psychology (Frontiers media). LZ, PhD, is a Professor of
Linguistics-in-Education and Associate Dean for the Faculty of
Education and Social Work, e University of Auckland,
NewZealand. His major interests and 100-plus publications are
on learner metacognition, language-teacher education, and L2
reading-writing development. Heis Co-Chief-Editor for System
(Elsevier) and an associate editor for Frontiers in Psychology,
serving as an editorial board member for journals such as
Applied Linguistics Review (de Gryuter), Australian Review of
Applied Linguistics (Benjamins), Chinese Journal of Applied
Linguistics (de Gruyter), Journal of Second Language Writing
(Elsevier), Metacognition and Learning (Springer Nature),
Journal of Second Language Studies (Benjamins), Asian-Pacic
Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education (Springer
Nature), Asian Journal of English Language Teaching (CUHK),
English Teaching and Learning (Springer Nature), and RELC
Journal (Sage). Hewas honored by the TESOL International
Association (United States) in 2016 with the award of “50 at 50,”
acknowledging “50 Outstanding Leaders” and was ocially
installed as a newly elected member of the Board of Directors
of the Association in 2017.

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 16 frontiersin.org
Data availability statement
e original contributions presented in the study are included
in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can
bedirected to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
e studies involving human participants were reviewed and
approved by e Human Ethics Committee of the University of
Auckland, NewZealand. e patients/participants provided their
written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and
intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for
publication.
Funding
This study was supported by a New Zealand China
Doctoral Research Scholarship (NZCDRS) for the first author
to complete her Ph.D. study at the University of Auckland,
NewZealand.
Conflict of interest
e authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or nancial relationships that could
beconstrued as a potential conict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their aliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
e Supplementary material for this article can befound online
at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301/
full#supplementary-material
References
Akama, K. (2007). Previous task experience in metacognitive experience. Psychol.
Rep. 100, 1083–1090. doi: 10.2466/pr0.100.4.1083-1090
Akama, K., and Yamauchi, H. (2004). Task performance and metacognitive
experiences in problem-solving. Psychol. Rep. 94, 715–722. doi: 10.2466/
pr0.94.2.715-722
Alfai, M. J. (2021). A suggested model for metacognitive strateg y instruction in
EFL writing classrooms. Read. Writ. Q. 38, 323–339. doi: 10.1080/10573569.
2021.1954569
Allen, P., Bennett, K., and Heritage, B. (2014). SPSS Statistics Version 22: A
Practical guide. 3rd Edn. Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia.
Amini, D., Anhari, M. H., and Ghasemzadeh, A. (2020). Modeling the relationship
between metacognitive strategy awareness, self-regulation and reading prociency
of Iranian EFL learners. Cogent Educ. 7, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2020.1787018
Anderson, N. J. (2002). e Role of Metacognition in Second Language Teaching
and Learning. Washington, DC: ERIC Publications.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). “Metacognition in writing: facilitating writer awareness,”
in Rhetoric, Uncertainty, and the University as text: How Students Construct the
Academic Experience. eds. A. Stubbs and J. Chapman (Regina: Canadian Plains
Research Center, University of Regina), 19–43.
Aşık, G., and Erktin, E. (2019). Metacognitive experiences: mediating the
relationship between metacognitive knowledge and problem solving. Egit. ve Bilim
44, 85–103. doi: 10.15390/EB.2019.7199
Awang, Z. (2012). Structural Equation Modeling using AMOS Graphics. Shah
Alam: Universiti Technologi MARA Publication Centre.
Bai, R., Hu, G., and Gu, P. Y. (2014). e relationship between use of writing
strategies and English prociency in Singapore primary schools. Asia-Pacic Educ.
Res. 23, 355–365. doi: 10.1007/s40299-013-0110-0
Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square
approximations. J. R. Stat. Soc. 16, 296–298.
Brown, A. L. (1978). “Knowing when, where, and how to remember: a problem
of metacognition,” in Advances in Instructional Psychology. ed. R. Glaser (New York,
NY: Halstcad Press), 77–165.
Chen, J., Zhang, L. J., and Parr, J. M. (2022). Improving EFL students’ text revision
with the self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) model. Metacognition Learn.
17, 191–211. doi: 10.1007/s11409-021-09280-w
Choi, S. (2013). Language anxiety in second language writing: is it really a
stumbling block? Second Lang. Stud. 31, 1–42.
De Silva, R., and Graham, S. (2015). e eects of strategy instruction on writing
strategy use for students of dierent prociency levels. System 53, 47–59. doi:
10.1016/j.system.2015.06.009
Dewaele, J. M. (2018). “Online questionnaires,” in The Palgrave Handbook
of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology, eds. A. Phakiti, P. De Costa,
L. Plonsky and S. Starfield (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan),
269–286.
Dewaele, J. M., and Alfawzan, M. (2018). Does the eect of enjoyment outweigh
that of anxiety in foreign language performance? Stud. Second Lang. Learn. Teach.
8, 21–45. doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.1.2
Dong, X., and Zhan, J. (2019). Impacts of metacognitive instruction on college
students’ EFL writing metacognitive features: knowledge experiences and
strategies. Foreign Lang. China 16, 62–70. doi: 10.13564/j.cnki.issn.1672-
9382.2019.01.009
Dörnyei, Z., and Taguchi, T. (2009). Questionnaires in second Language Research:
Construction, Administration, and Processing. 2nd Edn. New York, NY: Routledge,
doi: 10.4324/9780203864739.
Elides, A. (2001). “Metacognitive experiences in problem solving:
metacognition, motivation, and self-regulation,” in Trends and Prospects in
Motivation Research. eds. A. Elides, J. Kuhl and R. M. Sorrentino (New York, NY:
Kluwer Academic Publishers), 297–323.
Elides, A. (2002a). Feelings and judgments as subjective evaluations of
cognitive processing: how reliable are they? Psychol. J. Hell. Psychol. Soc. 9,
163–182.
Elides, A. (2002b). “e systemic nature of metacognitive experiences: feelings,
judgments, and their interrelations,” in Metacognition: Process, Function and use.
eds. P. Chambres, M. Izaute and P. J. Marescaux (New York, NY: Kluwer Academic
Publishers), 19–34. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-1099-4_2

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 17 frontiersin.org
Elides, A. (2006a). Metacognition and aect: what can metacognitive
experiences tell us about the learning process? Educ. Res. Rev. 1, 3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.
edurev.2005.11.001
Elides, A. (2006b). Metacognitive experiences: the missing link in the self-
regulated learning process. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 18, 287–291. doi: 10.1007/
s10648-006-9021-4
Elides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Dening its facets and levels of functioning
in relation to self- and co-regulation. Eur. Psychol. 13, 277–287. doi:
10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277
Elides, A. (2009). e role of metacognitive experiences in the learning process.
Psicothema 21, 76–82.
Elides, A. (2017). Aect, epistemic emotions, metacognition, and self-regulated
learning. Teach. Coll. Rec. 119, 1–22. doi: 10.1177/016146811711901302
Elides, A., and Misailidi, P. Eds. (2010). Trends and Prospects in Metacognition
Research. New York, NY: Springer.
Elides, A., Schwartz, B. L., and Brown, V. (2017). “Motivation and aect in self-
regulated learning,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Per formance.
eds. D. H. Schunk and J. A. Greene (New York, NY: Routledge), 64–82.
Elides, A., and Vauras, M. (1999). Introduction. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 14,
455–459. doi: 10.1007/BF03172972
Elides, A., and Vlachopoulos, S. P. (2012). Measurement of metacognitive
knowledge of self, task, and strategies in mathematics. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 28,
227–239. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000145
Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. ousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). “Metacognitive aspects of problem solving,” in e Nature of
Intelligence. ed. L. R. Resnick (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 231–236.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of
cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am. Psychol. 34, 906–911. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.
34.10.906
Flower, L., and Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. Coll.
Compos. Commun. 32, 365–387. doi: 10.2307/356600
Garner, R. (1994). “Metacognition and executive control,” in Models and Processes
of Reading. eds. R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell and H. Singer (Newark, DE:
International Reading Association), 715–732.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. L. (2010).
Multivariate data analysis. 7th Edn. Upper Saddle River, HJ: Prentice Hall.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Brindle, M., and Sandmel, K. (2009). “Metacognition
and children’s writing,” in Handbook of Metacognition in Education. eds. D. J.
Hacker, J. Dunlosky and A. C. Graesser (New York, NY: Routledge), 131–153.
Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Writ. Commun. 29,
369–388. doi: 10.1177/0741088312451260
Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the
argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. J. Second. Lang. Writ. 12, 181–209.
doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00015-8
Hu, R. (2014). “Learning about challenges of teaching in two worlds: ideologies and
beliefs in China and UnitedStates,” in East Meets West in Teacher Preparation: Crossing
Chinese and American B orders. ed. W. Ma (New York, NY: Teachers College), 7–23.
Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cuto criteria for t indexes in covariance
structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.
6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Hwang, M., and Lee, H.-K. (2017). Development and validation of the English
writing strategy inventory. System 68, 60–71. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2017.06.014
Jiang, Y., and Dewaele, J. M. (2019). How unique is the foreign language classroom
enjoyment and anxiety of Chinese EFL learners? System 82, 13–25. doi: 10.1016/j.
system.2019.02.017
Jin, Y., and Zhang, L. J. (2021). e dimensions of foreign language classroom
enjoyment and their eect on foreign language achievement. Int. J. Biling. Educ.
Biling. 24, 948–962. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2018.1526253
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). e application of electronic computers to factor analysis.
Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20, 141–151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116
Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39, 31–36. doi:
10.1007/BF02291575
Karlen, Y. (2017). e development of a new instrument to assess metacognitive
strategy knowledge about academic writing and its relation to self-regulated writing
and writing performance. J. Writ. Res. 9, 61–86. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2017.09.01.03
Kasper, L. (1997). Assessing the metacognitive growth of ESL student writers.
Tesl-Ej 3, 1–20.
Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: myth-understandings
about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 21, 430–445. doi:
10.1080/02601370210156745
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling.
4th Edn. New York, NY: Guilford.
Lee, I., and Mak, P. (2018). Metacognition and metacognitive instruction in
second language writing classrooms. TESOL Q. 52, 1085–1097. doi: 10.1002/
tesq.436
Li, Y., and Tian, X. (2018). An empirical research into the reliability of iWrite 2.0.
Mod. Educ. Technol. 28, 75–80. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2018.02.011
Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: a longitudinal
study of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation,
and evaluation of performance. Wr it. Commun. 29, 142–179. doi: 10.1177/
0741088312438529
Negretti, R. (2017). Calibrating genre: metacognitive judgments and rhetorical
eectiveness in academic writing by L2 graduate students. Appl. Linguist. 38,
amv051–amv539. doi: 10.1093/applin/amv051
Negretti, R., and Kuteeva, M. (2011). Fostering metacognitive genre
awareness in L2 academic reading and writing: a case study of pre-service
English teachers. J. Second. Lang. Writ. 20, 95–110. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.
02.002
Negretti, R., and McGrath, L. (2018). Scaolding genre knowledge and
metacognition: insights from an L2 doctoral research writing course. J. Second. Lang.
Wri t. 40, 12–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2017.12.002
Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. Am. Psychol. 51, 102–116.
doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.102
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis
Using IBM SPSS. 6th Edn. Sydney : Allen & Unwin.
Papaleontiou-Louca, E. (2003). e concept and instruction of metacognition.
Teach. Dev. 7, 9–30. doi: 10.1080/13664530300200184
Prior, M. T. (2019). Elephants in the room: an “aective turn,” or just feeling our
way? Mod. Lang. J. 103, 516–527. doi: 10.1111/modl.12573
Qin, L., and Zhang, L. J. (2019). English as a foreign language writers’
metacognitive stratgy knowledge of writing and their writing performance in
multimedia environments. J. Writ. Res. 12, 393–413. doi: 10 .17239/jowr-20
19.11.02.06
Raykov, T., and Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An Introduction to Applied Multivariate
Analysi s. New York, NY: Routledge, doi: 10.4324/9780203809532.
Richards, J. C. (2020). Exploring emotions in language teaching. RELC J. 53,
225–239. doi: 10.1177/0033688220927531
Ruan, Z. (2014). Metacognitive awareness of EFL student writers in a Chinese ELT
context. Lang. Aware. 23, 76–91. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2013.863901
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instr. Sci. 26,
113–125. doi: 10.1023/a:1003044231033
Shih, H. J., and Huang, S. C. (2020). College students’ metacognitive strategy use
in an EFL ipped classroom. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 33, 755–784. doi:
10.1080/09588221.2019.1590420
Stevens, J. (1992). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. 2nd Edn.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sun, T., and Wang, C. (2020). College students’ writing self-ecacy and writing
self-regulated learning strategies in learning English as a foreign language. System
90:102221. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2020.102221
Sun, Q., and Zhang, L. J. (2022). Examining the eects of English as a foreign
language student-writers’ metacognitive experiences on their writing performance.
Curr. Psychol. 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-03416-0
Sun, Q., Zhang, L. J., and Carter, S. (2021). Investigating students’ metacognitive
experiences: insights from the English as a foreign language learners’ writing
metacognitive experiences questionnaire (EFLLWMEQ). Front . Psychol. 12:744842.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.744842
Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th Edn.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tarricone, P. (2011). e Taxonomy of Metacognition. New York, NY: Psychology
Press, doi: 10.4324/9780203830529.
Taylor, C., and Drury, H. (2004). “The effect of student prior experience,
attitudes and approaches on performance in an undergraduate science writing
program,” in Effective Learning and Teaching of Writing: A Handbook of Writing
in Education. eds. G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Bergh and M. Couzijn (Amsterdam:
Kluwer), 435–451.
Teng, M. F. (2020). e role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in
mediating university EFL learners’ writing performance. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach.
14, 436–450. doi: 10.1080/17501229.2019.1615493
Teng, M. F., Qin, C., and Wang, C. (2021). Validation of metacognitive academic
writing strategies and the predictive eects on academic writing performance in a
foreign language context. Metacognition Learn. 17, 167–190. doi: 10.1007/
s11409-021-09278-4

Sun and Zhang 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986301
Frontiers in Psychology 18 frontiersin.org
Teng, M. F., Wang, C., and Zhang, L. J. (2022). Assessing self-regulatory writing
strategies and their predictive eects on young EFL learners’ writing performance.
Assess. Writ. 51:100573. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2021.100573
Teng, L. S., and Zhang, L. J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of
multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. Mod. Lang. J. 100,
674–701. doi: 10.1111/modl.12339
Teng, L. S., and Zhang, L. J. (2020). Empowering learners in the second/foreign
language classroom: can self-regulated learning strategies-based writing
instruction make a dierence? J. Second. Lang. Writ. 48:100701. doi: 10.1016/j.
jslw.2019.100701
Teng, M. F., and Zhang, L. J. (2021). Development of children’s metacognitive
knowledge, reading, and writing in English as a foreign language: evidence from
longitudinal data using multilevel models. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 91, 1202–1230. doi:
10.1111/bjep.12413
Teng, L. S., and Zhang, L. J. (2022). Can self-regulation betransferred to second/
foreign language learning and teaching? Current status, controversies, and future
directions. Appl. Linguis. 43, 587–595. doi: 10.1093/applin/amab032
Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: a case
study of two eective and two less eective writers. System 27, 537–555. doi:
10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00049-4
Weigle, S. C. (2005). “Second language writing expertise,” in Expertise in second
Language Learning and Teaching. ed. K. Johnson (New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan), 128–149.
Wenden, A. L. (1987). Metacog nition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities
of L2 learners. Lang. Learn. 37, 573–597.
Wong, B. Y. (1999). “Metacognition in writing,” in Developmental Perspectives on
children with high Incidence Disabilities. eds. R. Gallimore, L. P. Bernheimer, D. L.
MacMillan, D. L. Speece and S. R. Vaughn (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 183–198.
Wu, H. (2006). Metacognitive experiences in college students’ EFL writing.
Foreign Lang. eir Teach. 28–30.
Wu, M. M. (2021). e social nature of second language metacognition. Asia-
Pacic Educ. Res, 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s40299-021-00596-4
Yeh, H. C. (2015). Facilitating metacognitive processes of academic genre-based
writing using an online writing system. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 28, 479–498.
doi: 10.1080/09588221.2014.881384
Zabihi, R. (2018). e role of cognitive and aective factors in measures of L2
writing. Writ. Commun. 35, 32–57. doi: 10.1177/0741088317735836
Zhang, L. J. (2002). Exploring EFL reading as a metacognitive experience: reader
awareness and reading performance. Asian J. English Lang. Teach. 12, 69–94.
Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese
university students’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Q. 44, 320–353. doi:
10.5054/tq.2010.223352
Zhang, L. J., and Cheng, X. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive
written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A
mixed-methods study. J. English Acad. Purp. 54:101043. doi: 10.1016/j.
jeap.2021.101043
Zhang, L., Goh, C. C. M., and Kunnan, A. J. (2014). Analysis of test takers
metacognitive and cognitive strategy use and EFL reading test performance: a multi-
sample SEM approach. Lang. Assess. Q. 11, 76–102. doi: 10.1080/15434303.
2013.853770
Zhang, L. J., and Qin, T. L. (2018). “Validating a questionnaire on EFL writers’
metacognitive awareness of writing strategies in multimedia environments,” in
Metacognition in Language Learning and Teaching. eds. Å. Haukås, C. Bjørke and
M. Dypedahl (New York, NY: Routledge), 157–178. doi: 10.4324/9781351049
146-9
Zhang, L. J., Saeedian, A., and Fathi, J. (2022). Testing a model of growth mindset,
ideal L2 self, boredom, and WTC in an EFL context WTC in an EFL context.
J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev. 1–16. doi: 10.1080/01434632.2022.2100893
Zhang, L. J., omas, N., and Qin, T. L. (2019). Language learning strategy
research in system: looking back and looking forward. System 84, 87–92. doi:
10.1016/j.system.2019.06.002
Zhang, L. M., and Zhang, L. J. (2013). Relationships between Chinese college test
takers’ strategy use and EFL reading test performance: a structural equation
modeling approach. RELC J. 44, 35–57. doi: 10.1177/0033688212463272
Zhang, L. J., and Zhang, D. (2018). “Metacognition in TESOL: theory and
practice,” in e TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, Vol.II:
Approaches and Methods in English for Speakers of other Languages. eds. J. I. Liontas
and A. Shehadeh (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell), 682–792. doi: 10.1002/
9781118784235.eelt0803
Zhang, D., and Zhang, L. J. (2019). “Metacognition and self-regulated learning
(SRL) in second/foreign language teaching,” in Second Handbook of English
Language Teaching. ed. X. Gao (New York, NY: Springer International Publishing),
883–898. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_47-1
Zhang, J., and Zhang, L. J. (2022). e eect of feedback on metacognitive strategy
use in EFL writing. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 1–26. doi: 10.1080/09588221.
2022.2069822
Zhang, W. W., Zhang, L. J., and Wilson, A. J. (2021). Supporting learner success:
revisiting strategic competence through developing an inventory for computer-
assisted speaking assessment. Front. Psychol. 12:689581. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.
2021.689581
Zhao, C. G., and Liao, L. (2021). Metacognitive strategy use in L2 writing
assessment. System 98:102472. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2021.102472
Zimmerman, B. J., and Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: a
social cognitive perspective. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 22, 73–101. doi: 10.1006/
ceps.1997.0919