The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fostering master’s students’ metacognition and self-regulation practices for research writing
Abstract
Proficiency in writing is crucial for success in graduate school. While doctoral student writing has received attention in the research literature, little research has focused on master's student writing. Master's students need to be skilled writers in their professional lives, and have the same if not greater need for writing instruction as other graduate students. When writing is taught in graduate school, the instruction often focuses on content and text, not on the writing context and process. Recent research on academic writing suggests the importance of focusing on the behaviors, motivations, and cognitions that surround student writing, especially metacognitive awareness and self-regulation of the writing processes. This qualitative case study examined MA TESOL students’ reactions to classroom activities designed to teach metacognitive awareness of writing strategies, self-regulation of writing practices, and text strategies. Data collected included surveys and students’ writing plans. Five themes emerged from the data analysis. Students benefitted from: Increased metacognitive awareness of writing practices, the focus on the social support of writing, the opportunity to review peers’ papers, discussion of the stress points around writing, and instruction about the text structures underlying academic writing. Suggestions for application of instructional practices to other writing programs are included.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“research findings challenge this notion, revealing that post-graduates often encounter challenges in academic writing and continue to require instructional support (Santelmann et al., 2018; Kabaran, 2022).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Santelmann et al., 2018
Citations
Cites
Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective.
Wolters, C. A. (2003) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.179 · Cited by 679
Affective, cognitive, and behavioral differences between high and low procrastinators.
Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., & Murakami, J. (1986) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0167.33.4.387 · Cited by 521
Research works printed but not linked: 39
- 10.1023/B:IHIE.0000018908.36113.a5 · DOI
- 10.1080/13562510600680574 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/13562510801923229 · DOI
- 10.1177/146879410100100307 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/13562517.2014.945160 · DOI
- Bair M. A., 2013, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 10
- Belcher W. L, 2009, Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks
- 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6%3c740::AID-SCE4%3e3.0.CO;2-3 · DOI
- Chisholm R. M., 1991, Journal on Writing Across the Curriculum, 3, 4
- 10.1080/10494820802292386 · DOI
- 10.1080/13562517.2011.560381 · DOI
- Creswell J. W., 2013, Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design : Choosing among Five Approaches
- Fergie G., 2011, International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 23, 236
- 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.02.004 · DOI
- Graff G., 2010, They Say / I Say : The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing
- 10.18552/joaw.v1i1.25 · DOI
- 10.1080/13562510020029608 · DOI
- 10.1080/13562517.2014.974025 · DOI
- 10.1080/00228958.2006.10516456 · DOI
- 10.1177/0741088312438529 · DOI
- 10.1080/87567550309596408 · DOI · Paper page
- Nilson L. B., 2013, Creating Self-Regulated Learners: Strategies to Strengthen Students’ Self-Awareness and Learning Skills
- 10.2466/pms.2001.92.2.560 · DOI
- 10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/13562517.2011.641008 · DOI
- Saladaña J, 2015, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers
- 10.1080/87567555.2010.511315 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1007532302043 · DOI
- Silvia P. J., 2007, How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing
- Simpson S., 2012, WPA Journal, 36, 95
- Singleton-Jackson J., 2009, Current Issues in Education, 121, 1
- 10.1215/15314200-1-1-176 · DOI
- Swales J. M., 2004, Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills, 1
- 10.1007/BF03179901 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02064.x · DOI
- 10.1080/13562511003619961 · DOI
- Yin R. K., 2013, Case Study Research: Design and Methods
- 10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.004 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges
Wei, Y., & Liu, D. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1506725 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Santelmann, L. M., Stevens, D. D., & Martin, S. B.
- Affiliations
- Portland State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Santelmann, Lynn M.
- Venue
- College Teaching
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-04-04
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 111-123
- ISSN
- 1930-8299 (ISSN-L)
- 8756-7555
- OpenAlex
- W3122821831
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 11.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- College Teaching (publishedVersion)
- PDXScholar (Portland State University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- metacognition, student self-regulation, academic writing, graduate student writing, master's students, TESOL students, writing instruction, writing strategies, textual strategies, peer review, writing plan, text structure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fostering master’s students’ metacognition and self-regulation practices for research writing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/87567555.2018.1446898
- The paper
- Santelmann, L. M., Stevens, D. D., & Martin, S. B. (2018). Fostering master’s students’ metacognition and self-regulation practices for research writing. College Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2018.1446898