ISSN: 2226-6348
Open access
The impact of globalization has been felt by those who need to communicate in English. The corollary to this is that an emphasis is now placed on traditional writing skills within an increasingly complex range of communicative media. To meet the demands of writing competence that EFL learner’s now face, Flower and Hayes (1981) proposed a cognitive process writing model to provide insights, into how writers go about planning, generating, and revising, during the process of writing. Sitko (1998) proposes that one way to engage students in the cognitive process is to provide instruction in metacognition. Since there have been fewer studies focusing on examining the impact of metacognitive behavior in the Taiwanese learning context (e.g., You & Joe, 2001, 2002), the purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between English writing ability levels and EFL learners’ metacognitive behavior during the writing process; and further, to explore their attitudes and perceptions, concerning metacognitve operations, during the writing process. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were used in this non-experimental study. Subjects in the present study were 152 students majoring in Applied English at a university in the south of Taiwan. The finding of this study reveals that high-level writers make better use of metacognative behavior in the stages of planning as well as reviewing; however, there is no significant difference at the translating stage. The interview results show that highly-proficient writers: generate complete ideas, and concern themselves with the needs of their audience and the demands of specific genres, as well as additionally organizing an outline in English during the planning stage; whereas most intermediate- and low-proficient writers, only generate rough ideas and make an outline in Chinese. It is expected that the results of the present study will inform EFL writing teachers of the pedagogical implications and conclusions to be drawn from a fuller understanding of the metacognitive writing behavior exhibited by proficient EFL students.
Baker, W., & Boonkit, K. (2004). Learning strategies in reading and writing: EAP context. Regional Language Centre Journal, 35(3), 297-328.
Barrass, R. (1995). Students must write. New York: Routledge.
Beare, S., & Bourdages, J. S. (2007). Skilled writers’ generating strategies in La and L2: An exploratory study. In M. Torrance, L. van Wase, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and Conginition: Research and Applications (pp. 151-161). Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4nd ed.). NY: Person Education.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). NY: Person Education.
Chalk, J. C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2005). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing process for high school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(1), 75-87.
Chao, C. L. (1993). The psychological process of writing in college students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chung Cheng University, Department of Psychology, Chiayi, Taiwan.
Chen, F. R. (2003). A study of the writing process and audiences’ awareness of the writers with different abilities. Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, 16(1), 63-88.
Chen, F. Y. (2003). The EFL beginning writers’ perception and metacognitive knowledge of English writing-a study on the freshman at a university of science and technology. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Yunlin University of Science & Technology, Department of Applied Language, Yunlin, Taiwan.
Chin, Y. M. (2003). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on EFL writing: A case study. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Department of Foreign Language & Literature, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Cleaveland, M. C., & Larkins, E. R. (2004). Web-based practice and feedback improve tax students’ written communication skills. Journal of Accounting Education, 22, 211-228.
Da La Paz. S., Owenm, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2000). Riding Elvis’ motorcycle: Using self-regulated strategy development to PLAN and WRITE for a state writing exam. Learning Disabilities Research Practice, 15(2), 101-109.
Darus, S., Ismail, K., & Ismail, M. B. M. (2008). Effects of word processing on Arab postgraduate students’ essays in EFL. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 63-77.
El-Hindi, A. E. (1993). Supporting college learners: Metacognition, locus of control, reading composition and writing performance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 364852).
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Stenberg (Eds.), Cognitive process in writing (pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Goddard, Y. L., & Sendi, C. (2008). Effects of self-monitoring on the narrative and expository writing of four forth-grade students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24, 408-433.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. Baltimore: Paul H. Bookes.
Guo, S. Y. (1998). ??????? [Educational Assessment and Evaluation]. Taipei: Jinghua.
Hacker, D. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Hatch, G. (1991). Reviving the Rodential Model for composition: Robert Zoellner's alternative to Flower and Hayes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 333458).
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1983). A cognitive model of the writing process in adults. Final report. Washington, D.C: National Inst. of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED240608).
Huang, G. F. (1985). The productive use of RFL dictionaries. RELC Journal, 16(2), 54-71.
Kasper, L. F. (1997). Assessing the metacognitive groth of ESL student writers. TESL-EJ. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/tesl-ej/
ej09/a1.html
Kauffman, D. F., Ge, X., Xie, K., & Chien, C. H. (2008). Prompting in web-based environments: Supporting self-monitoring and problem solving skills in college students. J. Educational Computing Research, 38(2), 115-137.
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Galbraith, D., & Bergh, H. (2007). The effects of adapting a writing course to students’ writing strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 565-578.
Larios, J. R., Manchón, R., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2008). The foreign language writer’s strategic behavior in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 30-47.
Lee, Y. H., & You, Y. L. (2005). Exploring EFL Writers’ self-regulation during composing process. Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 237-249). Taipei: Crane.
Liao, Y. F. (2005). EFL writers’ goal setting during writing: A protocol analysis. Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Symposium and Book Fair on English Teaching (pp. 405-416). Taipei: Crane.
Lu, I. C., & Tseng, H. C. (2004). The differences in the metacognitive behaviors during writing process among the sixth graders of different writing abilities. Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, 17(2), 187-212.
Lynch, W. M. (1998). An investigation of writing strategies used by high ability seventh graders responding to a state-mandated explanatory writing assessment task. Draft. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 13-17.
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & Schafer, W. D. (1995). Evaluation of a writing instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction, and word processing [Abstract]. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 18, 278-291.
Maki, O. (2006). Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese ESL writers. An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 566-585.
McCurdy, M., Schmitz, S., & Albertson, A. (2010). Evidence-based written language instruction: Developing and implementing written language programs at the core, supplemental, and intervention levels. In G. G. Peacock, R. A. Ervin, E. J. Daly III, & K. W. Merrell (Eds.), Practical handbook of school psychology: Effective practices for the 21st century (pp.300-318). YN: Guilford.
McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299-325.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Monahan, B. D. (1984). Revision strategies of basic and competent writers as they write for different audiences [Abstract]. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(3), 227-259.
Moran, M. O., & Soiferman, l. K. (2010). How an understanding of cognition and metacognition translates into more effective writing instruction. The 11th annual education graduate student symposium (pp.1-33). Manitoba: winnipeg.
Mu, C., & Carrington, S. (2007). An investigation of three Chinese students’ English writing strategies. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 11(1), 1-23.
Ozagac, O. (2004). Process writing. Bogazici University SFL. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from
http://www.buowl.boun.edu.tr/teachers/PROCESS%20WRITING.htm
Palinscar, A., & Brown, A. (1986). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1, 117-175.
Peacock, M. (2001). Language learning strategies and EAP proficiency: Teacher views, student views and the test result. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. (pp.278-284). Cambridge.
Perin, D., Keselman, A., & Monopoli, M. (2003). The academic writing of community college remedial students: Text and learner variables. Higher Education, 45(1), 19-42.
Peterson-Karlan, G., Hourcade, J., & Parette, P. (2008). A review of assistive technology and writing skills for students with physical and educational disabilities. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 26(2), 13-32.
Raimes, A. (1990). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229-254.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259-291.
Sasaki, M. (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student writers. Language Learning, 53(3), 525-582.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advanced in applied psycholinguistics. NY: University of Cambridge.
Shang, H. F. (2007). An exploratory study of e-mail application on FL writing performance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20 (1), 79-96.
Sitko, B. (1998). Knowing how to write: Metacognition and writing instruction. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Stallard, C. K. (1974). An analysis of the writing behavior of good student writers [Abstract]. Research in the Teaching of English, 8, 206-218.
Summit IntelliMetric. (2008). CorrectEnglish. Retrieved December 7, 2010, from http://www.correctenglish.com/personal/
Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: a case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27, 537-555.
Wang, X. (2004). Encourage self-monitoring in writing by Chinese students. ELT Journal, 58(3), 238-246.
Wu, Y. W. (2007). Writing strategies and writing difficulties among college students of differing English proficiency. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Pingtong Institute of Commerce, Department of Applied Foreign Language, Pingtong, Taiwan.
Yagelski, R. P. (1995). The role of classroom context in the revision strategies of student writers [Abstract]. Research in the Teaching of English, 29(2), 216-238.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2000). Composition instruction: A metacognitive approach. The Selected Papers from the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 107-117). Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2001). Investigating the metacognitive awarneness and strategies of English-majored university student writers. The Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 106-119). Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2002). Skilled writers’ metacognitive conditional knowledge and self-regulation. In the Proceeding of the Nineteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp.515-527). Taipei: Crane.
Yu, Y. T. (2006). Effects of automatic essay grading system and bilingual concordance on EFL college students’ writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsinghua University of Education, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
Zhang, C. X. (2007). ????? [Educational physiology]. Taipei: Tunghua.
Zhou, L. F. (2006). The story behind English writing: Effects of three metacognitive learning strategy training on EFL senior high school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Department of English, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
In-Text Citation: (Wei et al., 2012)
To Cite this Article: Wei, Z.-F., Shang, H.-F., & Briody, P. (2012). The Relationship between English Writing Ability Levels and EFL Learners’ Metacognitive Behavior in the Writing Process. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 1(4), 193–217.
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode