CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 205Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Metacognitive writing strategies, critical thinking skills, and academic writing performance: A structural equation modeling approach

Open access
Teng, Mark Feng, Yue, Mei·2022·Metacognition and Learning
DOI 10.31234/osf.io/6rzkv

Preprint — published as 10.1007/s11409-022-09328-5 · Paper page

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The present study adopted the structural equation modeling approach to examine Chinese university students’ metacognition, critical thinking skills, and academic writing. In par- ticular, this research explored whether awareness in metacognition can foster critical think- ing and, thus, lead to enhancement in academic writing. The measure for exploring meta- cognitive writing strategies covered metacognitive knowledge and regulation in academic writing. The measure for understanding learners’ critical thinking encompassed the follow- ing five skills: inference, recognition of assumptions, deduction, interpretations, and evalu- ation of arguments. The academic writing assessment was based on an internal test. The participants consisted of 644 third-year students from a Chinese university. Three models tested: (1) the role of metacognition in academic writing; (2) the role of metacognition in critical thinking; and (3) correlations between metacognition, critical thinking skills, and academic writing. The results indicated significant relationships between the three vari- ables, and the implications based on these findings were discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31234/osf.io/6rzkv

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of Ll and L2 university writing language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 539-568.
  2. Bui, G., & Kong, A. (2019). Metacognitive instruction for peer review interaction in L2 writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11(2), 357-392.
  3. Camp, H. (2012). The psychology of writing development-and its implications for assessment. Assessing Writing, 17(2), 92-105.
  4. Chaffee, J. (2015). Critical thinking, thoughtful writing (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  5. Cottrell, S. (2017). Critical thinking skills: Effective analysis, argument and reflection. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  6. Efklides, A. (2001). Metacognitive experiences in problem solving: Metacognition, motivation, and self- regulation. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 297-323). Kluwer.
  7. Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learn- ing process? Educational Research Review, 1, 3-14.
  8. Efklides, A., Niemivirta, M., & Yamauchi, H. (2003). Motivation and self-regulation: Processes involved and context effects-A discussion. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 46, 38-52.
  9. Flavell, J. H. (2004). Theory-of-Mind development: Retrospect and prospect. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 274-290.
  10. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). Erlbaum.
  11. Gammil, D. (2006). Learning the write way. The Reading Teacher, 59(8), 754-762.
  12. Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.,), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457-478). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  13. Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 154-172). Routledge.
  14. Hall, N. C., & Goetz, T. (Eds.). (2013). Emotion, motivation, and self-regulation: A handbook for teachers.
  15. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449-455.
  16. Harris, K. R., Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2010). Metacognition and strategies instruction in writing. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 226-256). The Guilford Press.
  17. Hedgcock, J. S. (2012). Second language writing processes among adolescent and adult learners. In E. L. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Writing a mosaic of new perspectives (pp. 221-239). Psychology Press.
  18. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
  19. Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measure- ment, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3-4), 255-278.
  20. Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The psychology of writing. Oxford University Press.
  21. Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1-26.
  22. Kline, R. B. (1998). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practice of structural equation mod- eling. Guilford Press.
  23. McCormick, C. B. (2003). Metacognition and learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 79-102).
  24. Mehta, S. R., & Al-Mahrooqi, R. (2015). Can thinking be taught? Linking critical thinking and writing in an EFL context. RELC Journal, 46, 23-36.
  25. Moss, P. A., & Kozdiol, S. M. (1991). Investigating the validity of a locally developed critical thinking test. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice, 10(3), 17-22.
  26. Negretti, R., & McGrath, L. (2018). Scaffolding genre knowledge and metacognition: Insights from an L2 doctoral research writing course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 12-31.
  27. Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical think- ing in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3(2), 56-77.
  28. Oxford, R. L. (2013). Teaching and researching language learning strategies (2nd ed.). Pearson.
  29. Pally, M. (2001). Skills development in 'sustained' contentbased curricula: Case studies in analytical/critical thinking and academic writing. Language and Education, 15(4), 279-305.
  30. Phakiti, A. (2018). Assessing higher-order thinking skills in language learning. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-7). Wiley.
  31. Pintrich, P. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.
  32. Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning.
  33. In J. C. Impara, G. Schraw, & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43-97). University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
  34. Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of Self-regulated learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 269-286.
  35. Qin, L. M., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). English as a foreign language writers' metacognitive strategy knowledge of writing and their working performance in multimedia environments. Journal of Writing Research, 12(2), 393-413.
  36. Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Sec- ond Language Writing, 8, 45-75.
  37. Ruan, Z. (2014). Metacognitive awareness of EFL student writers in a Chinese ELT context. Language Awareness, 23(1-2), 76-91.
  38. Sato, M. (2022). Metacognition. In S. Li, P. Hiver & M. Papi (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second lan- guage acquisition and individual differences (95-108). Routledge.
  39. Schoenfeld, A. (1987). What's all the fuss about metacognition. In Schoen-feld, A. (Ed.) Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp.189-215).
  40. Schraw, G. A. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp. 3-16). Springer.
  41. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371.
  42. Schroyens, W. (2005). Knowledge and thought: An introduction to critical thinking. Experimental Psychol- ogy, 52(2), 163-164.
  43. Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. University of Chicago Press.
  44. Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? In J. St. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp.55-88). New York: Oxford University Press.
  45. Sternberg, R. (1985). Approaches to intelligence. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal & R. Glaser, (Eds.) Thinking and learning skills (Vol.2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  46. Tan, M., Randi, J., Barbot, B., Levenson, C., Friedlaender, L. K., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2012). Seeing, con- necting, writing: Developing creativity and narrative writing in children. In E. L. Grigorenko, E. Mam- brino, & D. Preiss (Eds.), Writing: A mosaic of new perspectives (pp. 275-291). Psychology Press.
  47. Teng, F. (2019). The role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in mediating university EFL learners' writing performance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17501 229. 2019. 16154 93 · DOI
  48. Teng, F. (2021). Interactive-whiteboard-technology-supported collaborative writing: Writing achievement, metacognitive activities, and co-regulation patterns. System, 97, 102426. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sys- tem. 2020. 102426 · DOI
  49. Teng, F., & Huang, J. (2019). Predictive effects of writing strategies for self-regulated learning on secondary school learners' EFL writing proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 53, 232-247.
  50. Teng, F., & Huang, J. (2021). The effects of incorporating metacognitive strategies instruction into collabo- rative writing on writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02188 791. 2021. 19826 · DOI
  51. Teng, F., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Development of children's metacognitive knowledge, and reading and writ- ing proficiency in English as a foreign language: Longitudinal data using multilevel models. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 1202-1230.
  52. Teng, F., Wang, C., & Zhang, L. J. (2022a). Assessing self-regulatory writing strategies and their predictive effects on young EFL learners' writing performance. Assessing Writing, 51, 100573. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. asw. 2021. 100573 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (1999). Changes in the relation between cognitive and metacogni- tive skills during the acquisition of expertise. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XIV, 509-523.
  54. Veenman, M. V. J., & Van Cleef, D. (2019). Measuring metacognitive skills for mathematics: Students' self-reports vs. on-line assessment methods. ZDM International Journal on Mathematics Education, 51, 691-701.
  55. Veenman, M. V. J., van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3-14.
  56. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39-285). Plenum Press.
  57. Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (2008). Watson-glaser critical thinking appraisal: Short form manual. Pearson.
  58. Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (2009). Watson-glaser II critical thinking appraisal: Technical manual and user's guide. Pearson.
  59. Wenden, A. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in SLA: The neglected variable. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 44-64). Harlow: Pearson Education
  60. Wolters, C. A. (1999). The relation between high school students' motivational regulation and their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance. Learning & Individual Differences, 11, 281-299.
  61. Wolters, C. A., & Benzon, M. B. (2013). Assessing and predicting college students' use of strategies for the self-regulation of motivation. Journal of Experimental Education, 81, 199-221.
  62. Zhang, L. J., & Qin, T. L. (2018). Validating a questionnaire on EFL writers' metacognitive awareness of writing strategies in multimedia environments. In A. Haukås, C. Bjørke, & Dypedahl, M. (Eds.), Meta- cognition in language learning and teaching (pp. 157-179). London, England: Routledge.
  63. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 205

Metadata

Authors
Teng, M. F., & Yue, M.
Affiliations
  • Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai (CN)
  • Hainan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Yue, Mei
ORCID
Venue
Metacognition and Learning
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2022-11-29
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
237-260
ISSN
1556-1623 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.31234/osf.io/6rzkv
OpenAlex
W4309890414
Cited by
205
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 2
FWCI
44.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Metacognition and Learning (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Education Department of Hainan Province
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive regulation, critical thinking skills, academic writing performance, inference, deduction, interpretation, argument evaluation, Chinese university students

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