Metacognitive Knowledge and Metacognitive Control of Writing Strategy between High- and Low-performing Chinese EFL Writers

Abstract

Abstract-This study investigated metacognitive knowledge and control of writing strategy in English among 65 Chinese EFL learners in two argumentative writing tasks. Metacognitive knowledge was measured using a questionnaire written in simple present tense. Metacognitive control required writers to respond to a questionnaire written in simple past tense immediately following completion of each writing task according to the actual strategy use in the writing tasks. Students were grouped into high-and low-performing EFL writers using one standard error above or below the Mean scores of the writing tasks. One-way ANOVA was conducted on the four kinds of writing strategies (i.e., planning, cognitive, monitor-control, and evaluating). We found that while there were no differences on any type of the writing strategies for metacognitive knowledge, the two groups differed in the actual writing strategy use on each occasion. For the more familiar and easier writing topic, high-and low-performing students differed only in cognitive writing strategies. For the less familiar and more challenging writing task, high-achievers adopted significantly more planning, cognitive, and evaluating strategies than low-achievers. This research supported for distinction between metacognitive knowledge and control in EFL writing.

Strategic Processing of Chinese Young English Language Learners in an International Standardized English Language Test

“…Another possible explanation for the more strategic behaviors by the high-achieving students could be that they had a relatively large strategic repertoire to draw upon (i.e., strategic knowledge) than low-achieving peers. However, as the study did not measure strategic knowledge, which is stable, enduring, and trait like dispositions ( Phakiti, 2003a , b , 2006 , 2008a , b ; Westby, 2004 ; Han and Stevenson, 2008 ; Han, 2012 ; Flavell, 2016 ; Wang and Han, 2017 ), it is hard to verify such speculation. To explicate the complicated relationship between strategic knowledge, strategic processing, and language performance in language tests among young children, future studies may consider measuring both trait-like knowledge of strategies and context-specific strategic processing.…”

“…McNamara (1996) and Phakiti (2008a) postulate that strategic competence encompasses two components: strategic knowledge and strategic processing. While strategic knowledge is considered being relatively stable and stored in the long-term memory ( Han and Stevenson, 2008 ; Phakiti, 2008a , b ; Han, 2012 , 2013 ; Wang and Han, 2017 ); strategic processing is related to the online information processing and heavily hinges upon the contexts, hence relatively unstable ( Schmidt, 2001 ; Cohen, 2007 ). The postulation of the construction of strategic competence has also been validated and the stability of the construct has also been established in Phakiti’s, (2008a , b ) longitudinal studies, which showed a clear distinction between strategic knowledge and strategic processing in a customarily designed FL reading testing context.…”

“…The postulation of the construction of strategic competence has also been validated and the stability of the construct has also been established in Phakiti’s, (2008a , b ) longitudinal studies, which showed a clear distinction between strategic knowledge and strategic processing in a customarily designed FL reading testing context. For strategic processing to be executed successfully, merely having strategic knowledge is only a necessary but not a sufficient condition ( Han and Stevenson, 2008 ; Han, 2012 , 2013 , 2017b ; Wang and Han, 2017 ), as the online processing is likely to be contingent upon a number of factors, such as task difficulty level at hand, a person’s working memory capacity, and an individual’s motivation to the tasks and contexts ( Schraw, 1998 , 2001 ; Robinson, 2001 ; Phakiti, 2008a ). In the language tests, for instance, the same test-taker may adjust how they orchestrate test-taking strategies depending on the important of the test to him/her (e.g., when he/she attends an international standard language test vs. a local language test organized by the school).…”

Effects of Metacognition on Performance in Mathematics and Language- Multiple Mediation of Hope and General Self-Efficacy

“…Past researchers make evident the positive influential role of metacognition in academic achievement and learning (Artelt et al, 2010;Dimmit & McCormick, 2012;Dunlosky & Metcalfe, 2009;Efklides, 2014;Gaskill & Hoy, 2002;Hacker, Bol, & Keener, 2008;Thillmann, 2008;Winne & Nesbit, 2010) in various domains, such as mathematics (Callan & Cleary, 2018;De, Desoete, & Roeyers, 2000;Desoete, Roeyers, & Buysse, 2001;Desoete, Roeyers, & De Clercq, 2003), language and physical education (Stephanou & Mpiontini, 2017), reading competence (Soodla, Jõgi, & Kikas, 2016), language learning (Wang & Han, 2017), writing and reading (Chonan & Sawa, 2009;Harris, Santangelo, & Graham, 2010), music (Barbara & Alessandro, 2017), learning and performing better in the classroom (Pintrich, 2002), emotions in learning situations (Efklides, 2011(Efklides, , 2016Karagiannides, Barboukis, Gourgoulis, Kosta, & Antoniou, 2015) and problem solving (Antonietti, Ignazi, & Perego, 2000).…”

Exploring Metacognitive Strategies Employed by ESL Writers: Uses and Awareness

“…cognitive, affective, social, and metacognitive). L2 writing also involves interactions between internal factors (e.g., first language (L1) writing abilities) and external factors (e.g., guidance of writing tasks, audience) (Hyland, 2003;Wang & Han, 2017). One of the concerns being discussed by educators and researchers is what makes successful students differ from unsuccessful ones.…”