100% found this document useful (1 vote)

32 views94 pages

Metacognition in Language Teaching

This document discusses the importance of metacognition in language teaching, emphasizing its role in enhancing students' language proficiency through self-awareness and regulation of their learning processes. It serves as a comprehensive guide for educators, providing practical strategies and case studies to foster independent learning and engagement among students. The text aims to bridge the gap between theoretical frameworks and actionable practices in language education, ultimately contributing to more effective teaching and learning outcomes.

Uploaded by

Salahhh

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

100% found this document useful (1 vote)

32 views94 pages

Metacognition in Language Teaching

Uploaded by

Salahhh

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 94

Teng

Metacognition, the awareness and regulation of one’s own

learning process, is a cornerstone of effective language
learning. This Element is a ground-breaking text that offers
a comprehensive guide to incorporating metacognitive
strategies into the teaching of reading, writing, vocabulary, and
listening. This Element stands as a bridge between theoretical Language Teaching
frameworks and actionable teaching practices, enabling
educators to enhance their students’ language proficiency in
a holistic manner. This Element is replete with case studies,
examples from diverse learning contexts, and evidence-based
practices. It is an invaluable resource for language educators
who aspire to cultivate independent learners capable of self-

Metacognition in Language Teaching

Metacognition
assessment and strategy adjustment. By fostering metacognitive
awareness across all facets of language learning, this Element
empowers students to take charge of their own learning

in Language
journey, leading to more profound and lasting language
mastery.

About the Series

This Elements series aims to close the gap
Series Editors
Heath Rose
Teaching
between researchers and practitioners by University of
allying research with language teaching Oxford
practices, in its exploration of research
informed teaching, and teaching-
informed research. The series builds upon
Jim McKinley
University College
London
Mark Feng Teng
a rich history of pedagogical research in
its exploration of new insights within the
field of language teaching.

Cover image: EduLeite/E+/Getty Images ISSN 2632-4415 (online)

ISSN 2632-4407
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge (print)
Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
Elements in Language Teaching
edited by
Heath Rose
University of Oxford
Jim McKinley
University College London

METACOGNITION IN
LANGUAGE TEACHING

Mark Feng Teng

Macao Polytechnic University

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi – 110025, India
103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467

Cambridge University Press is part of Cambridge University Press & Assessment,

a department of the University of Cambridge.
We share the University’s mission to contribute to society through the pursuit of
education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781009581318
DOI: 10.1017/9781009581295
© Mark Feng Teng 2025
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions
of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take
place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
When citing this work, please include a reference to the DOI 10.1017/9781009581295
First published 2025
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-009-58131-8 Hardback
ISBN 978-1-009-58130-1 Paperback
ISSN 2632-4415 (online)
ISSN 2632-4407 (print)
Cambridge University Press & Assessment has no responsibility for the persistence
or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this
publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will
remain, accurate or appropriate.

Elements in Language Teaching

DOI: 10.1017/9781009581295
First published online: March 2025

Mark Feng Teng

Macao Polytechnic University
Author for correspondence: Mark Feng Teng, markteng@mpu.edu.mo

Abstract: Metacognition, the awareness and regulation of one’s own

learning process, is a cornerstone of effective language learning. This
Element is a ground-breaking text that offers a comprehensive guide to
incorporating metacognitive strategies into the teaching of reading,
writing, vocabulary, and listening. This Element stands as a bridge
between theoretical frameworks and actionable teaching practices,
enabling educators to enhance their students’ language proficiency in
a holistic manner. This Element is replete with case studies, examples
from diverse learning contexts, and evidence-based practices. It is an
invaluable resource for language educators who aspire to cultivate
independent learners capable of self-assessment and strategy
adjustment. By fostering metacognitive awareness across all facets of
language learning, this Element empowers students to take charge of
their own learning journey, leading to more profound and lasting
language mastery.

This Element also has a video abstract: www.cambridge.org/ELAT_Teng

Keywords: Metacognition in language teaching, Metacognitive awareness,
Metacognition in reading, Metacognition in writing, Metacognition in
vocabulary learning

© Mark Feng Teng 2025

ISBNs: 9781009581318 (HB), 9781009581301 (PB), 9781009581295 (OC)
ISSNs: 2632-4415 (online), 2632-4407 (print)

1 Introduction on Metacognition in Language Teaching 1

2 Understanding Metacognition 5

3 Metacognition in Reading 22

4 Metacognition in Writing 31

5 Metacognition in Listening 49

6 Metacognition in Vocabulary Learning 56

7 Assessing Metacognition 62

8 Conclusion on Metacognition in Language Teaching 70

References 75

1 Introduction on Metacognition in Language Teaching

This Element was inspired by my experience at a forum on methodology in
applied linguistics in Osaka, Japan. During the event, a teacher commented on the
importance of my presentation on metacognition in language teaching and
learning, urging me to delve deeper into this topic. This encouragement resonated
with me, and I decided to explore the subject further through this Element for
several reasons. First, I currently teach in Macao, where incorporating metacog-
nition into language teaching and learning comes with substantial challenges;
many students here struggle with motivation in language learning. I believe that
fostering metacognitive awareness could provide useful strategies to help these
students become more engaged, autonomous learners. However, I also believe
that we need more understanding on this topic, especially in challenging situ-
ations where motivation is lacking. The cultural context of Macao, with its unique
blend of Chinese and Portuguese influences, adds another layer of complexity to
this issue. Unlike many other regions, students in Macao mostly do not face
pressure from high-stakes testing and societal expectations. This is largely
because the society and government have casinos as one of the biggest sources
of income, which can further dampen their intrinsic motivation to learn lan-
guages. The relatively stable economic achievement provided by the casino
industry might lead students to feel less urgency in pursuing academic excellence,
including language proficiency. To address this, educators must explore innova-
tive approaches that resonate with students’ experiences and interests, potentially
integrating technology and collaborative learning to spark curiosity and engage-
ment. Additionally, professional development for teachers on how to effectively
implement metacognitive strategies in the classroom could be crucial in over-
coming these challenges. Ultimately, a deeper exploration of the interplay
between metacognition and motivation in this context could lead to more effect-
ive teaching practices and improved language learning outcomes.
Second, I have an extensive track record of publications involving metacog-
nition in language teaching. My research has delved deeply into how metacog-
nitive strategies can enhance second language vocabulary acquisition and
writing, providing insights into both theoretical frameworks and practical
applications. These publications have explored various aspects of metacogni-
tion, such as self-regulation, self-efficacy, and strategic planning, and their
impact on learners’ ability to acquire and apply new language skills effectively.
Now is an opportune time to share my findings with a broader audience,
enabling readers to better understand this crucial matter.
Finally, although metacognition is a well-recognised topic in educational
psychology, it has not received the attention it deserves in the context of

language teaching. In educational psychology, metacognition is celebrated for

its role in enhancing learning processes, promoting self-awareness, and improv-
ing problem-solving skills across various disciplines (Flavell, 1979). However,
when it comes to language teaching, the application of metacognitive strategies
remains underexplored and underutilised. After Wenden (1998) highlighted this
issue in language learning, there still hasn’t been sufficient attention given to it.
This oversight is significant, given the potential benefits that metacognition can
bring to language learners, such as improved comprehension, enhanced vocabu-
lary acquisition, and greater overall language proficiency. The lack of emphasis
on metacognition in language education may stem from traditional teacher-
centred methods that prioritise rote memorisation and repetitive practice over
reflective and strategic learning, particularly in the English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) context. Such approaches often fail to engage learners in
meaningful ways or to develop their ability to think critically about their own
learning processes. Integrating metacognitive approaches into language curric-
ula can empower students to take control of their learning, fostering a deeper
understanding and more meaningful engagement with the language. Addressing
this gap in attention could lead to innovative teaching practices that not only
enhance language skills but also equip learners with lifelong learning strategies.
By fostering a metacognitive mindset, educators can help students become more
self-directed, adaptable, and effective learners, capable of navigating the com-
plexities of language acquisition and beyond.
As mentioned earlier, interest in this area has grown following Wenden’s
(1998) seminal publication; however, comprehensive resources remain needed,
which describe how to apply metacognitive strategies in language pedagogy
(Rose, 2012). This Element aims to fill that gap by synthesising the extant
literature, providing practical insights, and highlighting the role of metacogni-
tive training in language learning. By doing so, I hope to contribute to the
ongoing dialogue in language teaching and offer tools for educators seeking to
improve students’ language-learning experiences through enhanced metacog-
nitive awareness.
At least three notable books have addressed metacognition in language
teaching. The first is Goh and Vandergrift’s (2021) work on metacognition in
listening. They examine both the theory of metacognition in listening and the
adoption of associated strategies in the English as a second language (ESL)/
English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom. The focus is on the often
understudied area of second language communication skills, that is, listening.
Goh and Vandergrift (2021) reviewed listening-related research, outlining how
listening instruction has traditionally been delivered and pointing out the
drawbacks of these approaches. Pitfalls include a lack of understanding of the

listening process itself and an overemphasis on input comprehension as the

exemplar of listening skills. The authors argued for a learner-centred approach
to listening instruction that integrates metacognitive strategies. These tech-
niques are meant to help learners understand how they learn, thus teaching
students to self-correct and improve their overall listening experience.
The second one is Haukås et al.’s (2018) discussion of metacognition in
language teaching and learning. This complete volume is divided into theoret-
ical and empirical sections, offering a multifaceted view of metacognition. It
covers a range of perspectives, including metalinguistic and multilingual aware-
ness as well as language learning and teaching in both second-language (L2)
and third-language (L3) settings. They also summarise empirical studies related
to writing, teacher education, and classroom communication. Its breadth is
remarkable: this work features numerous contexts and views on metacognition
in language learning and teaching. One highlight of Haukås et al.’s (2018) work
is their accentuation of the importance of metacognition in language teacher
education. The authors advocate for a stronger focus on developing metacogni-
tive skills among experienced and future teachers. They stress that fostering an
interest in metacognition is essential for teachers to enhance their own instruc-
tional practices and to help students develop these critical skills. This process
mandates knowledge sharing and collaboration.
The third one, authored by L. Teng (2022), offers an in-depth exploration of
self-regulation within the realm of second language learning and teaching. This
pivotal work applies self-regulation theory to language acquisition, presenting
a groundbreaking conceptual framework designed to evaluate multidimensional
self-regulated learning strategies. By connecting these strategies with social,
psychological, and linguistic factors, Teng provides a holistic view of how
learners can effectively manage their own language learning processes. She
delves into the practical applications and contributions of self-regulated learn-
ing (SRL) to second and foreign language (L2) writing, examined from both
sociocognitive and sociocultural perspectives. This work showcases a thorough
and up-to-date review of the conceptual and methodological issues surrounding
SRL, as well as the latest research on its application in L2 learning and teaching
contexts. L. Teng’s volume further details the design and outcomes of
a comprehensive large-scale project that includes both observational and inter-
vention studies, investigating SRL strategies in L2 writing. This research
highlights the critical importance of a cross-disciplinary understanding of
SRL strategies, emphasising their role in advancing theoretical frameworks
and extending their applications to L2 education broadly, with a particular
focus on L2 writing. Additionally, this work discusses various strategy ques-
tionnaires and their validation processes, offering valuable insights into the

discussion of self-regulated learning strategies. By providing these tools and

methodologies, L. Teng’s work contributes significantly to enhancing the
effectiveness of language education, empowering learners to become more
autonomous and proficient in their language acquisition endeavours.
Contributing to the existing body of knowledge, this Element reports on
metacognition in reading, writing, listening, and vocabulary learning along
with the assessment of metacognition in language teaching. There is little
doubt that metacognition is instrumental to effective language learning and
teaching. Through this Element, readers will come to realise the importance of
metacognitive awareness in language pedagogy. Successful language learners
are aware of the complexities of the target language they hope to master, the
hurdles involved in the learning process, their own beliefs about language
learning and teaching, and techniques that can be employed to overcome
these obstacles. The same principles apply to language educators: to deliver
more impactful lessons, teachers must not only be aware of their pedagogical
practices and beliefs but also understand how different instructional methods
suit students’ personal profiles and environments. It is similarly necessary to
remember that teachers are lifelong learners themselves, continually refining
their understanding of the language they teach and searching for ways to make
their lessons more appealing and beneficial to students.
Against this backdrop, this Element represents a much-needed contribution
to the field of language teaching, including listening, writing, reading, and
vocabulary learning. Despite the limitations of insufficient information on
understanding the role of metacognition in speaking, this Element spotlights
the importance of metacognitive awareness across multiple domains of lan-
guage education, emphasising its role in enhancing both teaching and learning
processes. By highlighting the critical need for metacognitive skills, this
Element provides ample justification for the topic’s theoretical exploration
and practical application. It underscores how metacognitive awareness can
lead to more effective language acquisition by enabling learners to plan,
monitor, and evaluate their learning strategies. Moreover, this Element
addresses the essential need to cultivate metacognitive skills not only among
learners but also among pre-service and in-service teachers. By doing so, it
helps to bridge the gap between theory, research, practice, and assessment,
ensuring that educational practices are informed by the latest insights and
methodologies. This alignment is crucial for developing a more integrated
approach to language teaching, where theoretical concepts are seamlessly
translated into classroom strategies and assessment tools. This Element is
indispensable for anyone involved in language teaching, as it contains tactical
guidance for fostering metacognitive awareness. It offers educators practical

strategies to enhance the general effectiveness of language teaching, equipping

them with the tools to nurture independent, reﬂective, and strategic learners. By
integrating these approaches into their teaching practices, educators can signiﬁ-
cantly improve learning outcomes and contribute to the development of lifelong
language learning skills among their students.

2 Understanding Metacognition
Metacognition is key in distinguishing effective language learners from less
effective ones; it signiﬁcantly affects students’ decision making and success in
acquiring a language. Language teachers are crucial in nurturing students’
metacognitive awareness, namely by modelling metacognitive strategies during
instruction. It is equally critical for teachers to possess a metacognitive under-
standing of their pedagogical methods in order to enhance students’ language-
learning experiences. Thus, the comprehension of metacognition is imperative
to consider.

2.1 An Understanding of Metacognition from Educational

Psychology
2.1.1 Deﬁnition of Metacognition

The concept of metacognition has long intrigued educational psychologists, and

its importance in academic achievement is well established. Metacognitive
knowledge improves the quality and effectiveness of academic learning
(Schraw, 1998). This awareness not only improves self-regulated learning
(SRL; Wenden, 2002) but also fosters learner autonomy (Victori & Lockhart,
1995), allowing students to take charge of their educational journeys and adapt
to various learning environments. Furthermore, metacognitive skills are closely
linked to scholastic achievement, as they empower learners to set goals, monitor
their progress, and adjust their approaches to overcome challenges
(Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). By cultivating these skills, students can
achieve higher levels of academic success and develop the resilience needed
to tackle complex tasks. Fairbanks et al. (2010) contended that teachers who
recognise metacognition’s place in learning can better support students’ devel-
opment. By integrating metacognitive strategies into their teaching practices,
educators can create a more supportive learning environment that encourages
students to reflect on their thinking, evaluate their understanding, and apply
their knowledge more effectively.
Due to its interdisciplinary nature and multiple theoretical perspectives,
metacognition has no universal definition. However, in the field of educational
psychology, the description that Flavell provided in the 1970s is widely

regarded as foundational. Known for his theory-of-mind approach, he explained

metacognition as ‘the active monitoring and consequent regulation and orches-
tration of these processes in relation to the cognitive objects or data on which
learners bear, usually in the service of some concrete goal or objective’ (Flavell,
1976, p. 232). A core feature of this deﬁnition is that metacognition involves
applying the theory of mind to cognitive tasks.
The theory of mind refers to one’s cognitive ability to ‘attribute mental states,
such as beliefs, desires, and intentions, to oneself and others’ (Lockl &
Schneider, 2006, p. 16). Boekaerts (1997) expanded on this notion by stating
that metacognition encompasses not only a theory of mind but also a ‘theory of
self, theory of learning, and learning environments’ (p. 165). Building on these
ideas, Flavell (1979) further deﬁned metacognition as learners’ awareness of
their cognitive and executive processes with the aim of regulating various
aspects of cognitive activities. He proposed three domains within metacogni-
tion: metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experiences, and metacognitive
strategies. Additionally, Flavell (1979) conceptualised metacognition as con-
sisting of four components: metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experi-
ences, goals, and strategy activation.

2.1.2 Frameworks on Understanding Metacognition

Flavell (1985) introduced a holistic, two-dimensional framework to clarify

metacognition. These dimensions are knowledge of metacognition (person,
task, and strategies) and regulation of metacognition (planning, monitoring,
and evaluating). His model captures both the cognitive nature of metacognition
and this concept’s role in knowledge regulation. Many researchers have adopted
the classification to operationalise metacognition. Flavell’s framework affords
teachers a richer sense of students’ metacognition, enabling instructors to more
readily facilitate change in students’ learning processes and outcomes. For
instance, learners’ comprehension of person-oriented variables influences
their decision making when choosing strategies, monitoring these techniques’
application, and transferring them to new learning tasks. Similarly, learners’
knowledge of task-related variables empowers them to select approaches suited
to specific activities. Learners’ understanding of different strategies also guides
them in making informed decisions about options, ultimately enhancing the
effectiveness of their educational endeavours. Understanding the notions of
planning, monitoring, and evaluating is of utmost importance for teachers and
learners alike. A solid grasp of planning allows teachers to develop well-
structured lessons that align with desired learning outcomes. Moreover, by
closely monitoring students’ progress, teachers can identify individual strengths

and weaknesses and offer targeted support to encourage optimal learning.

Evaluation enables teachers to assess learning outcomes, provide timely and
constructive feedback, and foster students’ growth. Meanwhile, learners benefit
from understanding planning, monitoring, and evaluating by being able to set
clear and achievable goals, track their progress, and make necessary adjust-
ments. They employ SRL strategies to appraise their own performance, reflect
on their comprehension, and improve by taking ownership of their education
and becoming self-directed learners.
Also in the realm of metacognition, scholars have embraced a framework that
categorises metacognitive knowledge into three types based on respective
processes: declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge (Paris et al.,
1984). Declarative knowledge refers to factual understanding about oneself
(i.e., a sense of one’s skills, intellectual capacities, affective factors, and cogni-
tive abilities). For instance, learners may possess declarative knowledge when
they recognise their strengths and weaknesses in a certain subject area or
discover their preferred learning styles. Procedural knowledge, on the other
hand, calls for making decisions about task implementation by employing
proper strategies (Paris et al., 1984). Let us consider learning to swim. At
first, despite receiving directions from an instructor, a learner may struggle to
swim until they have practiced a few times. Repetition leads to this task
becoming implicit knowledge, which resides in the learner’s subconscious.
Such knowledge is difficult to quantify; it arises from practice and experience.
Conditional knowledge pertains to the decision-making process about when,
where, and why specific strategies should be used to accomplish particular tasks
(Schraw, 1998). This type of knowledge is crucial for applying suitable tech-
niques and allocating resources efficiently. Conditional knowledge enables
learners to act as guides in determining when and how strategies can be adopted
to execute a task. For instance, a student may possess conditional knowledge
when they recognise that using mnemonic devices is beneficial for memorising
information and then identifies fitting contexts in which to deploy this approach.
According to Brown (1987), metacognitive regulation differs from meta-
cognitive skills, as it refers to how people detect distracting internal and
external stimuli in order to sustain effort over time for executive functions.
Schraw (1998) elaborated on planning, monitoring, and evaluating. Planning
involves one’s ability to use appropriate strategies and resources to complete
tasks. It reflects the thoughtful consideration of steps required to accomplish
a goal and the successful coordination of one’s approach. By engaging in
careful planning, learners can optimise their efforts and increase their chances
of success. Monitoring refers to one’s capacity to check their performance
during tasks; it involves keeping an eye on one’s progress, identifying

deviations or errors, and adjusting to stay on track. Effective monitoring

allows learners to address issues as they arise, which helps learners stay engaged
in the educational process. Evaluating calls for assessing one’s regulatory
processes and learning outcomes, namely by thinking about the utility of
chosen strategies, the quality of one’s work, and overall success in the learning
experience. This metacognitive skill enables learners to analyse their own
performance and make deliberate decisions for future improvements. Schraw
and Dennison (1994) proposed two additional metacognitive strategies based on
debugging and information management. Debugging strategies involve noting
and rectifying lapses in comprehension and performance. Learners with this
skill can acknowledge misconceptions, thus developing deeper understanding
and more precise performance. Information management strategies pertain to
processing, organising, elaborating, and summarising task-related information.
These strategies aid learners in manipulating the information they encounter to
promote comprehension and retention.
Anastasia Efklides has offered insight into metacognition as well. For example,
Efklides (2001) stated that learners’ metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive
experiences are closely connected. These experiences correspond to learners’
feelings about their own knowledge, their opinions about their own understanding,
their perceptions of task difficulty, and their assessments of confidence and
correctness when performing tasks. Numerous factors can influence learners’
metacognitive experiences: task complexity; prior experiences; personal attributes
(e.g., cognitive ability, personality, and self-concept); and, of course, metacogni-
tive knowledge. Efklides (2006) further described metacognition as a higher-order
cognitive model that interacts with object-level cognition through monitoring and
control functions. The meta level receives input from the object level through
monitoring, which then informs the control function to adapt cognitive processes
accordingly. Metacognitive experiences are seen as complex inferential processes
that reflect one’s progress towards a goal; this feedback is delivered in either an
affective or cognitive context. These experiences are critical in activating affective
or cognitive regulatory loops, in turn guiding self-regulatory mechanisms.
Efklides (2008) expanded on metacognition by specifying it across three domains
in line with Flavell (1979): metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experiences,
and metacognitive strategies. In particular, metacognitive experiences encompass
one’s conscious awareness and feelings during information processing (e.g., the
feeling of knowing, the effort involved, solutions’ accuracy, perceived difficulties,
familiarity with the content, and personal confidence). These experiences are
crucial for individuals to assess task performance. Metacognitive knowledge
and experiences contribute to the monitoring aspect of cognition, while metacog-
nitive skills pertain to its control. In the learning process, one’s metacognitive

experiences – shaped by subjective and affective responses – can greatly affect

one’s general metacognitive framework. For example, feelings such as satisfac-
tion or anxiety can influence a learner’s future strategy use and shape their
metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive experiences play a significant role in
the classroom, where students display a range of emotions. Efklides (2008)
framed metacognition as a fully conscious endeavour, with people being entirely
aware of their monitoring and control processes. She also argued that metacogni-
tion is individualised and that external factors minimally affect it; that is, meta-
cognition represents a personal part of the learning process. The classification of
metacognition’s sub-components is important. If this concept concerns both how
one monitors and controls their own thinking, then it naturally covers a suite of
phenomena (e.g., introspective and self-regulatory processes). It is accordingly
necessary to identify distinguishable sub-components of metacognition. Certain
facets – namely knowledge, strategies, and experiences – constitute a classic
framework.

2.1.3 Key Theoretical Stances

The subject of metacognition has drawn substantial attention from researchers

and educators in various disciplines given its relevance to learning, problem
solving, reasoning, and conceptual understanding across learners, topics,
domains, tasks, and contexts. However, the challenge of comprehending meta-
cognition becomes apparent as different definitions, constructs, assumptions,
processes, and mechanisms are proposed. Azevedo (2020) contended that,
despite clear progress in this field, more theoretical work is needed to cohe-
sively define metacognition and its constituent parts. Veenman, van Hout-
Wolters, and Afflerbach (2006) rightly stated that ‘while there is consistent
acknowledgement of the importance of metacognition, inconsistency marks the
conceptualisation of the construct’ (p. 4). Norman et al.’s (2019) review identi-
fied major advancements in metacognition research and summarised the term’s
definitions using three branches. The first branch revolves around the extent to
which metacognition is a pre-conscious, pre-reflective, non-representational, or
pre-verbal form of thinking. This line of enquiry explores the foundational
aspects of metacognitive processes that occur before conscious awareness or
introspection. The second branch shifts the focus from the mere existence of
metacognitive thinking to understanding how people engage in metacognitive
processes and proactively manage important tasks. This branch investigates the
active regulation and control of cognitive processes through metacognition and
explores how people monitor and alter their cognitive strategies to optimise
learning and performance. The third branch concerns developmental aspects of

metacognitive abilities across the lifespan, particularly whether these skills

change with age. This research agenda considers how cognitive ﬂuency and
processing time may inﬂuence metacognitive functioning and whether meta-
cognitive abilities decline in adulthood.

2.1.4 Reﬂection

Here, I have attempted to summarise metacognition based on themes and keywords

from the literature. I hope this synthesis sheds light on the concept’s intricacies.
First, metacognition is often described as ‘cognition about cognition’, meaning that
metacognition involves thinking about personal cognitive processes. It goes
beyond simply engaging in cognitive activities to being aware of and monitoring
one’s thinking. Metacognition has also been deemed ‘information-based’, which
suggests that various factors – including conscious and non-conscious ones – affect
metacognitive processes. For example, the speed at which an answer comes to
mind or a person’s familiarity with a task domain can shape metacognitive
judgements. A dynamic interplay thus exists between conscious and non-
conscious aspects of metacognition. Furthermore, metacognitive feelings are typ-
ically described as ‘experience-based’: these feelings refer to one’s subjective
perceptions of their own cognitive processes and encompass elements such as
the feeling of knowing, the effort involved in a task, solution accuracy, obstacles,
content familiarity, and conﬁdence. These experiences grant people valuable
feedback on their cognitive performance. Metacognitive processes are conscious
in both cases, as metacognition involves higher-order mental representations
indicative of consciousness. People therefore need to be cognisant of their own
thinking and to perform reﬂective processes that transcend automatic or non-
conscious cognitive activities.

2.2 An Understanding of Metacognition in Language

Teaching and Learning
2.2.1 Definition of Metacognition in Language Teaching and Learning
The field of language teaching has increasingly acknowledged the role of meta-
cognitive awareness for learners. Metacognitive awareness is crucial in language
teaching and learning, especially in foreign-language and L2 education. Educators
who prioritise cognitive strategies and self-directed language learning know the
significance of incorporating metacognitive awareness into curricula. Researchers
have investigated the link between metacognition and successful language learners
(Anderson, 2008). Common tenets of metacognitive instructional models include
activating students’ prior knowledge, reflecting on their knowledge and learning

goals, explaining and modelling strategies (i.e., by the teacher), and involving
students in setting goals for monitoring the learning process. The teacher plays
a critical part in explaining, modelling, and creating an environment conducive to
reflective discussions. However, metacognition has not yet received the attention it
deserves within language teaching and learning.
Wenden (1987) may be the first to highlight the roles of metacognition in
language learning and teaching; he played a pioneering role in this field.
Building on Flavell’s work, Wenden identified three types of metacognitive
knowledge: person knowledge, task knowledge, and strategy knowledge. His
contributions to the realm of metacognition in language learning and teaching
underlined these categories’ importance. Person knowledge refers to one’s
understanding of their cognitive processes, strengths, and weaknesses in rela-
tion to language learning. It involves self-awareness and self-reflection, allow-
ing individuals to recognise their preferred learning styles, language aptitude,
and motivation levels. By developing person knowledge, learners become more
attuned to their own educational needs and can make informed decisions about
their language learning approaches. Task knowledge pertains to the purpose,
demands, and requirements of specific language learning tasks. It involves
being able to evaluate task objectives and to identify the resources required
for completion. Task knowledge enables learners to approach language learning
tasks with a clear sense of what is expected and how to achieve desired
outcomes. Strategy knowledge encompasses the awareness and use of learning
techniques for effective language acquisition (e.g., to enhance language learn-
ing efficiency); this type of knowledge equips learners with a repertoire of
strategies, such as note taking, summarising, self-assessment, and goal setting,
so they may choose which tactics to employ in different language learning
contexts. Learners who nurture these forms of metacognitive knowledge can
take more active, autonomous roles in their language learning.

2.2.2 Frameworks on Understanding Metacognition in Language

Teaching and Learning

In Wenden’s (1998) framework, metacognitive knowledge should be viewed as

a prerequisite for SRL. Such knowledge guides planning (i.e., early in one’s
learning process) and monitoring processes as one moves through learning
tasks. It comprises self-observation, assessment of progress and challenges,
and decisions about remediation. Furthermore, metacognitive knowledge
serves as a criterion for appraising a ﬁnished learning task. However, metacog-
nitive knowledge alone may be insufﬁcient for certain aspects of planning:
domain knowledge plays a complementary and essential role. Metacognitive

knowledge serves two distinct functions. First, it is motivational in that it

energises the self-regulation involved in learning. Second, it is cognitively
oriented because it directly moulds those processes. Language educators should
acknowledge the significance of incorporating knowledge about learning into
tasks designed to help language learners build learning strategies. People with
strong metacognitive awareness are better prepared to face the obstacles inher-
ent to second language learning. They also tend to demonstrate a firm belief in
their ability to succeed in language learning and take proactive measures to
realise their educational pursuits (Wenden, 1998). Recognising the role of
metacognition in second language learning can hold value for second language
acquisition. Numerous attributes, such as age, language aptitude, and motiv-
ation, can influence one’s extent of person-based knowledge. Bringing meta-
cognitive awareness into language teaching and learning enables students to
grapple with challenges, trust in their language learning skills, and work
towards attaining associated goals.
The process of gaining declarative knowledge is closely related to metalin-
guistic awareness. Metalinguistic awareness refers to one’s ability ‘to consider
language not just as a means of expressing ideas or communicating with others
but also as an object of inquiry’ (Gass & Selinker, 2008, p. 359). It involves
introspection about the structure, rules, and components of language itself.
Learners possessing metalinguistic awareness can develop language awareness,
which then enhances their metalinguistic awareness. Language awareness
encompasses explicit knowledge of language and involves conscious percep-
tion and sensitivity to the learning, teaching, and use of language (Svalberg,
2007). It goes beyond deploying language as a communication tool; people with
language awareness have a conscious understanding of, and desire to explore,
language’s structures, functions, and conventions. Within the area of metacog-
nition, explicit knowledge about language learning processes falls under
declarative metacognitive knowledge. This knowledge involves being aware
of the strategies and principles that facilitate language learning (e.g., knowledge
of learning techniques, learning styles, and language acquisition approaches).
Declarative metacognitive knowledge enables individuals to deliberately reflect
on their learning processes, make educated decisions about their learning
tactics, and adapt these approaches to suit their needs. Learners obtain explicit
knowledge about language structures and functions through metalinguistic
awareness and language awareness. This understanding supports their metacog-
nition concerning language learning processes, and they can navigate their
language learning journey more effectively. Learners with explicit knowledge
can also actively track their progress, measure their language proficiency, and
choose language learning strategies wisely.

2.2.3 Key Theoretical Stances

There are some key theoretical stances regarding metacognition in language
teaching and learning. Anderson (2002, 2008) outlined five components of
metacognition about learning to be developed in the language classroom: (1)
preparing and planning for learning (i.e., students reflect on their goals and
identify strategies to achieve them); (2) allowing students to make conscious
decisions about their learning strategies and processes; (3) monitoring strategy
use and encouraging students to track the effectiveness of their chosen tech-
niques; (4) orchestrating diverse approaches (i.e., teaching students to combine
multiple strategies); and (5) evaluating strategy use and learning (i.e., cyclically
asking questions about goals, techniques used, and possible alternatives).
Anderson emphasised that these components work together to enhance lan-
guage learners’ metacognitive skills.
Rose (2012) criticised the current measurement of language learning strat-
egies, arguing that available practices are usually unreliable. He called for
clearer definitions of strategic learning and the development of more accurate
and qualitative instruments to assess this construct. Rose further contended that
it is essential to examine strategic learning not only based on a student’s self-
regulation during a learning task but also in terms of their cognitive and
behavioural strategies. Research frameworks that include both self-regulation
and strategy use need to be explored to fully illustrate strategic learning.
Additionally, theories must remain flexible to encourage new models of stra-
tegic learning. The need for strategic learning highlights the importance of
metacognitive awareness in language teaching.
Haukås (2018) defined metacognition as ‘an awareness of and reflections about
one’s knowledge, experiences, emotions and learning in the contexts of language
learning and teaching’ (p. 13). Haukås also linked metacognitive awareness with
language awareness. Metacognition refers to broad reflections on one’s know-
ledge, experiences, emotions, and learning across all domains, whereas language
awareness pertains to reflections in a trio of sub-domains: language, language
learning, and language teaching. These domains are interconnected, and meta-
cognition in language teaching often involves simultaneous reflection in all three.
Investigations into teachers’ and learners’ beliefs, the use of learning strategies,
metalinguistic and multilingual awareness, intercultural awareness, and self-
efficacy all represent aspects of metacognition. Such analyses shed light on
how people perform metacognitive processes in language learning and teaching
contexts. By examining their own beliefs, students and teachers can gain insights
into their personal cognitive processes, attitudes, and motivations around lan-
guage learning. Learning strategy use involves metacognitive decision making,

where people consciously choose and deploy techniques to enhance their lan-
guage learning outcomes (Oxford, 1990). Metalinguistic and multilingual aware-
ness concern one’s ability to scrutinise the structure, applications, and
relationships between languages. Intercultural awareness entails reflecting on
the cultural dimensions of language and communication. Finally, self-efficacy
relates to one’s belief in their ability to succeed in language learning tasks
(F. Teng, 2024d).
L. Teng and Zhang (2022) asserted that self-regulation principles and metacog-
nitive awareness practices can enrich L2/foreign language learning and teaching.
L. Teng (2022) bridged SRL with language learning strategies, stressing the
learning process and students’ pivotal roles within it. ‘SRL’ and ‘language learning
strategies’ are multifaceted terms that include cognitive, metacognitive, social-
behavioural, and motivational components. This rich framework allows for the
incorporation of control mechanisms related to cognition, behaviour, the environ-
ment, and motivation. Scholars can therefore inspect various dimensions of learn-
ers’ SRL development. For instance, L. Teng (2024) pointed out the importance of
exploring motivational regulation and social behaviour in L2 writing settings. The
process of L2 writing can be evaluated through a multidimensional lens, including
determining how learners set goals and subsequently regulate their cognition,
motivation, and behaviour during the writing process. This point of view acknow-
ledges that these components are often influenced by learners’ goals and diverse
contextual features. Scholars and educators can gain valuable insights into the
metacognitive aspects of language learning by considering these interconnected
factors. L. Teng’s ideas reinforce the significance of metacognition in language
learning and teaching. By contemplating the interplay between SRL and language
learning strategies, educators can promote learners’ autonomy, self-regulation, and
strategic thinking. This understanding fosters instructional interventions that sup-
port learners in becoming proficient language users. Metacognitive practices also
convey the need to empower learners to be active participants in their own learning
(i.e., by setting goals, tracking their progress, and adjusting when necessary). As
Zhang and Zhang (2018) said, metacognition – described as one’s awareness of
oneself, the task at hand, employed strategies, and personal readiness – is funda-
mental to students’ agency and independence.
F. Teng et al. (2022) assembled a model to demystify metacognition, delin-
eating this construct as the monitoring and control of cognition (see Figure 1).
This framework maintains that metacognition operates on two principal levels:
the observational level, where one tracks and assesses their cognitive activities;
and the managerial level, where one fine-tunes these activities. This dual
functionality underscores metacognition’s role in fostering one’s conscious
awareness and mastery over cognitive functions. F. Teng et al. (2022) further

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms

Metacognition

Acquisition

Retention

Retrieval
Monitoring Control

Metacognitive Metacognitive Metacognitive skills

knowledge experiences /strategies

Metacognitive
Person/ Task/ Strategy/ Feelings Judgments regulation
declarative procedural conditional

Monitoring

Reflection
Planning Evalution

Figure 1 Multifaceted elements of metacognition (F. Teng et al., 2022, p. 171)

16 Language Teaching

separated metacognition into three stages – acquisition, retention, and retrieval –

that connect the observational and managerial dimensions. The model posits
that metacognition is complex and has three interwoven domains: metacogni-
tive knowledge (awareness of one’s cognitive processes); metacognitive experi-
ences (one’s lived subjective experience of cognition); and metacognitive skills
(one’s application of strategies such as planning, monitoring, and evaluation).
Central to this triad is the act of reflection, which is crucial for the cyclical
process of planning, monitoring, and evaluating. F. Teng (2023a) expanded the
discourse on metacognition by emphasising its deeply personal nature. F. Teng
(2023a) noted that metacognition is not merely a set of abstract cognitive
processes but a reflection of a person’s evolving understanding and command
over their own thinking and learning. This attribute is pivotal in educational
settings, therapeutic contexts, and self-improvement; it dictates how one
approaches new information and challenges. F. Teng (2023a) also elaborated
on the symbiotic relationship between the pillars of metacognition (i.e.,
metacognitive knowledge, experiences, and skills). Metacognitive knowledge –
one’s understanding of their cognitive strengths, weaknesses, and strategies – is
the basis upon which metacognitive experiences are built. These real-time,
conscious experiences of cognition inform ongoing learning. Metacognitive
skills, including the capacities to plan, monitor, and appraise one’s cognitive
strategies, are honed through applying knowledge and reflecting on one’s
experiences. Moreover, F. Teng (2023a) argued that this tripartite framework
is not static but rather develops with practice. Individuals become more adept at
deploying metacognitive strategies as they perform complex tasks, leading to
a more sophisticated understanding of their learning processes. This iterative
reflection and adaptation make metacognition a powerful ally in language
learning.
Another interesting aspect of metacognition is that it possesses trait-like and
state-like elements (Sato, 2022). This dichotomy is key for understanding how
metacognitive abilities can vary between and within people over time.
Metacognition, as a trait, refers to enduring qualities that define an individual’s
usual approach to learning. Some learners naturally engage in metacognitive
thinking more regularly than others. Numerous factors can contribute to this
tendency, including prior educational experiences, personal dispositions
towards reflection, and innate cognitive abilities. Trait-like metacognition is
relatively stable across settings and tasks, shaping how a person typically
interacts with new information and problem-solving situations. A trait-like
metacognitive approach during language learning might manifest in the habit-
ual use of specific techniques for planning, monitoring, and evaluating one’s
own language development. Certain learners might consistently self-assess

Adaptivity

Control

Metacognition
Feedback

VR digital gaming
Location

Autonomy Formality

Pedagogy

Locus of control

Figure 2 Metacognition and autonomy in virtual reality digital gaming

(F. Teng, 2024a)

their progress in vocabulary acquisition or regularly reﬂect on their reading

comprehension strategies. Conversely, the state of metacognition is more vari-
able and context-dependent. A learner might exhibit strong metacognitive skills
under particular circumstances (e.g., during a structured writing task where they
are actively planning and revising their work) but not others (e.g., an impromptu
speaking exercise). State-like metacognition is dynamic and can be enhanced or
suppressed by issues such as stress, motivation, or perceived task difﬁculty.
Language teachers can foster state-like metacognitive engagement among stu-
dents by designing activities that prompt metacognitive thinking and by creat-
ing a classroom environment that encourages introspection and self-regulation.
F. Teng (2024a) proposed a framework (Figure 2) that elucidates the oper-
ational dynamics of students participating in virtual reality digital gaming.
Central to this framework is an emphasis on metacognitive awareness for
fostering learners’ autonomy and vice versa. The reciprocal relationship
between metacognition and autonomy highlights individuals’ capacity to self-
regulate and navigate learning experiences within virtual reality digital gaming
contexts.

2.2.4 Reﬂection

In my attempt to summarise and understand the intricate dynamics of metacog-

nition, I have come to realise that it is not merely an abstract concept but

a practical tool that can transform the educational landscape. The increasing
acknowledgement of metacognitive awareness in the field of language teaching
highlights its necessity for learners to effectively harness their resources,
identify linguistic challenges, and set achievable goals. This understanding
resonates with my experiences in language education, where fostering meta-
cognitive skills has proven essential in guiding students towards autonomy and
success. The ability for students to reflect on their cognitive processes is crucial
in enabling them to take charge of their learning journeys.
As an educator, I have witnessed first hand the transformative power of
incorporating metacognitive strategies into curricula. It has become evident
that when students are encouraged to activate prior knowledge, reflect on their
learning goals, and engage in goal-setting, they develop a deeper understanding
of their learning processes. This approach not only enhances their academic
achievements but also prepares them for lifelong learning. The theoretical
frameworks and insights have further enriched my understanding of how
metacognitive awareness can be cultivated in language classrooms. The frame-
works underscore the importance of creating a language learning environment
where reflective discussions are encouraged, and where students are guided in
developing their metacognitive skills. However, despite its recognised import-
ance, metacognition still lacks the attention it deserves within language teaching
and learning. This reflection has reinforced my commitment to advocating for
its integration into language teaching and learning practices.

2.3 An Understanding of Metacognition Based on My Teaching

and Research Experiences
I currently teach at Macao Polytechnic University. Macao is a unique region
whose residents enjoy numerous privileges, including priority access to educa-
tional institutions and job opportunities with high salaries. The term ‘job
hunting’ may not be entirely appropriate here, as many positions are reserved
for Macao residents. Consequently, students in Macao seldom face great stress
in terms related to their schooling or employment. The most perplexing aspect
of language teaching in Macao is student involvement – many learners lack
interest, drive, and incentive, and no strong communities of practice exist to
promote engagement. Both the imagined and practiced communities for these
students come with a lack of pressure; activities such as watching Netﬂix,
browsing YouTube, and sleeping are prevalent. This alignment between the
imagined and practiced communities affords students a consistent identity and
position. However, mainland students encounter a disparity: their imagined
community is one of university life, whereas their practiced community

resembles a primary-school environment. This discrepancy can easily lead to an

identity crisis. I therefore propose a novel conceptualisation of metacognition in
language teaching and learning. Metacognition in language learning is partly
based on seeking awareness as an agent of one’s language learning, during
which identity, position, and self-reﬂection are being promoted to enhance
learning outcomes.
When I struggle to derive inspiration from teaching, I seek solace in
research. However, the community in Macao does not seem to be research-
oriented either. My imagined community would ideally offer ample feedback
and support for conducting research. The reality is, for me, sadly different.
Many of my colleagues show little interest in research and prefer instead to
remain comfortable, as evidenced by comments like ‘I only like my comfort
zone’, ‘Please help us publish everything so we can rest more’, ‘Don’t send me
any academic posts – too much pressure’, and ‘Can I lay down like this for the
rest of my life?’ Given this atmosphere, I have been compelled to seek
alternative communities of practice. For instance, connecting with friends
and work partners at the Kansai Methodology Research Forum grants me
the intellectual stimulation I seek; there, I can converse with others who are
genuinely committed to research and academic progress. Thus, in my eyes,
metacognition in research involves an awareness that positions the researcher
as a seeker of knowledge. This sense extends beyond one’s immediate sur-
roundings. Interfacing with a broader academic community can enhance
scholarship and personal growth.

2.4 Critical Issues

Several critical issues still stand to be explored upon perusing the literature on
metacognition.

2.4.1 Metacognition and Age

The study of metacognition and its relationship to age has evolved over time.
Early work in the 1970s mostly covered children’s metamemory and their
understanding of person, task, and strategy variables. Scholars investigating
theory of mind subsequently delved into children’s initial metacognitive know-
ledge, specifically the awareness of mental states such as desires and intentions.
This exploration widened the scope of research to task-related cognitive pro-
cesses meant to improve performance and track progress. Metacognition has
been described as ‘knowledge about knowledge’, ‘thoughts about thoughts”, or
“reflections about actions’, all of which typify its self-reflective nature (Weinert,
1987, p. 8). Flavell (1979) pointed out the interconnectedness between the three

facets of metacognition, where metacognitive knowledge informs the selection

and use of metacognitive skills for speciﬁc people and cognitive tasks.
Researchers have aimed to understand the critical period for the establish-
ment of metacognitive awareness. Insights suggest that metacognitive thinking
may begin as soon as infancy and continue to develop throughout early child-
hood (Brinck & Liljenfors, 2013). Yet the matter of whether metacognitive
abilities decline with age is up for debate. Interestingly, older adults have been
found to outperform younger adults on some metacognitive tasks and can adapt
and acquire metacognitive skills as needed (Pennequin et al., 2010). These
patterns raise a question: are age-induced changes in metacognition primarily
developmental or learning-related? Supplemental studies could clarify this
issue (Hertzog, 2016).

2.4.2 Metacognition and Cognition

Metacognition, which is often mistaken for cognition, is distinct among cogni-

tive processes. It is the scientific study of one’s thinking about their own
cognition, while cognition itself delves into aspects such as memory, attention,
language comprehension, reasoning, learning, problem solving, and decision
making. Metacognition’s multidimensionality enables people to acquire
domain-related knowledge and regulatory skills, empowering them to control
cognitive processes across multiple domains (Schraw, 2001). In addition to its
scientific definition, metacognition can be interpreted as one’s awareness of and
reflection on their knowledge, experiences, emotions, and learning in all areas.
This broad understanding emphasises the introspective character of metacogni-
tion and its potential impacts on self-regulation and self-directed learning.
Flavell (1979) distinguished between metacognitive and cognitive activities:
the former category involves learners’ planning, reflecting, monitoring, and
evaluation of their learning processes; the latter focuses on acquiring informa-
tion, clarifying concepts, and engaging in complex mental tasks (e.g., planning
and executing activities). This differentiation underlines the active, self-
reflective nature of metacognition and its roles in refining learning strategies
and metacognitive regulation.
One compelling argument for the importance of metacognition lies in teach-
ability. Educators can employ numerous strategies to cultivate students’ meta-
cognitive abilities. For instance, by using the ‘think-aloud’ method, instructors
can guide students through problem solving while verbally expressing their
thoughts and decision-making strategies. This technique allows learners to
observe metacognitive processes in action and develop an understanding of
productive problem solving. Modelling coping skills and resilience in the face

of adversity is another powerful way to enhance metacognition. By demonstrat-

ing personal mistakes, perseverance, and adaptive strategies, educators provide
students with insights into metacognitive regulation and the significance of
metacognitive strategies. Engaging students in discussions about problem solv-
ing fosters metacognitive reflection. In being prompted to articulate their
thought processes, students can better acknowledge their cognitive methods
and refine those tactics accordingly. Concept mapping, reminder checklists,
self-questioning, annotated drawings, and reciprocal teaching are additional
ways to nurture metacognition. These techniques encourage students to actively
deploy metacognitive processes, such as organising information, self-
monitoring, and reflecting on personal learning strategies. However, cognition
is not always easily taught.

2.4.3 Inconsistencies in Understanding Metacognition across Disciplines

Metacognition covers a range of areas that people control and monitor. Reasons
for studying it vary by discipline. The field of early childhood studies stresses
metacognitive activities related to managing human interaction and predicting
the environmental conditions children are learning to navigate. This perspective
recognises the importance of metacognition in social interaction and environ-
mental adaptation during early development. Experimental cognitive psych-
ology, in taking another tack, seeks to describe the information-processing
antecedents underlying metacognitive feelings: researchers in this discipline
strive to uncover the cognitive processes and mechanisms that give rise to
metacognitive experiences and judgements (Koriat, 2007). Cognitive neuro-
psychology assumes a different approach by investigating the brain regions
involved in metacognitive processing. Through neuroscientific methods,
scholars aim to identify the neural correlates and mechanisms behind metacog-
nition (Fleming et al., 2012). Personality psychology explores individual dif-
ferences and their implications for metacognitive expression. Educational
psychology emphasises metacognitive activities that facilitate effective learn-
ing and functioning in academic settings; this viewpoint strives to specify
interventions that enhance learning outcomes and metacognitive regulation
(Dimmitt & McCormick, 2012).
Metacognition also plays a crucial role in language teaching (Sato, 2022;
F. Teng, 2023a; Zhang & Zhang, 2018). Language learners engage in metacog-
nitive activities to monitor and regulate their language acquisition. These
students are trained to be aware of their own language proficiency, set learning
goals, plan study strategies, track their comprehension and production of
language, and evaluate their progress. Metacognitive strategies in language

learning involve reﬂecting on one’s language abilities, identifying areas of

strength and weakness, and implementing appropriate techniques to improve
one’s language skills. Relevant tactics may include self-questioning, self-
monitoring, self-evaluation, and self-regulation.

2.5 Summary
This section has discussed multiple perspectives on metacognition by transi-
tioning from the wider field of educational psychology to the more narrow
domain of language learning and teaching. I hope that this background on
metacognition will inspire researchers, language teacher educators, teacher
trainees, and practicing language instructors. I encourage all professionals in
these roles to start or continue investigating metacognition in language learn-
ing and teaching. There is a pressing need to centre metacognition within
language teacher education programmes. Experienced and prospective
teachers alike should be genuinely committed to developing their own meta-
cognitive skills and fostering metacognition in their students. However, these
goals require shared knowledge among all stakeholders in language educa-
tion. Only through collaboration can a robust foundation be established for
metacognitive practices. By recognising the vital part that metacognition
plays in language learning and teaching, educators can empower students to
become more self-regulated and autonomous in their language learning jour-
neys. Metacognition equips people with the tools to reflect on their cognitive
processes, set goals, choose appropriate strategies, monitor their progress, and
adjust as needed. These skills are invaluable for lifelong language learning
and can greatly increase the effectiveness and efficiency of language
instruction.

3 Metacognition in Reading
Significant attention has been directed towards reading, particularly in under-
standing how L2 readers utilise their metacognitive knowledge to extract
meaning from texts. Recognising that students’ strategies represent conscious
efforts to enhance their language skills and comprehension (Oxford, 1996;
Rose, 2012), it becomes evident that metacognition plays an essential role in
reading. By acknowledging this, educators can identify and impart successful
strategies to less proficient readers, thereby improving their reading skills.
Metacognitive knowledge, such as how students apply strategies in their EFL
reading development, is crucial for effective reading instruction. Importantly,
societal variations in target-language exposure and literacy traditions can influ-
ence reading excellence. This section argues that contextualising learners’

metacognitive knowledge is vital for preparing them to apply this knowledge

effectively, thereby enhancing their reading efﬁciency in real-life contexts.

3.1 Understanding the Role of Metacognition in Reading

Understanding the theoretical rationale of metacognition is fundamental to
appreciating its role in reading. Metacognition involves awareness and regula-
tion of one’s cognitive processes, which is crucial for effective reading compre-
hension. It enables readers to plan, monitor, and evaluate their understanding as
they engage with a text. This self-awareness allows readers to adapt their
strategies to better comprehend and retain information, making reading
a more purposeful and dynamic process.
Pedagogical support is known to be useful for devising strategies for mean-
ingful reading. Learners’ metacognitive knowledge about strategy use while
learning to read appears critical for their reading efficiency and confidence
building (Lehtonen, 2000). According to McLeod and McLaughlin (1986),
reading is not a passive activity during which one simply extracts meaning
from written text; it is instead ‘an active and interactive process where the reader
uses their language knowledge to predict and construct meaning based on the
text’ (p. 114). Readers who clearly perceive a reading task’s metacognitive
aspects are more likely to employ diverse strategies to process the text com-
pared with those who lack such awareness. This perspective provides a basis for
grasping metacognition in reading.
If metacognition is conceived as the practice of reflecting on and regulating
one’s learning, then in the reading context, it involves the student engaging in
critical thinking about their own comprehension as they progress through a text.
The reader becomes conscious of their cognitive experience and monitors their
understanding. A core element of reading comprehension is achieving deep
understanding, which goes beyond literal comprehension and factual know-
ledge to involve placing information in context. Individuals must connect this
information to prior knowledge and then interpret, analyse, and compare it to
their pre-existing understanding to potentially amend their understanding. This
point also reflects the criticality of metacognition for reading. Related instruc-
tion focuses on mastering cognitive skills and developing automaticity in
decoding, ultimately leading to reading fluency.
Previous work (Wen & Johnson, 1997) has shown that successful and
unsuccessful EFL students’ learning strategies are distinct. Strategy use resides
on a continuum, with variations being tied to learners’ language proficiency and
skills. Strategy use ranges from ineffective to effective, and the perceived
adoption of techniques may shift by task. Zhang (2001) tracked EFL learners’

metacognitive awareness in reading via a semi-structured interview guide

meant to elicit participants’ metacognitive knowledge of strategy use. The
approach followed Flavell’s (1987) framework of metacognition. Participants’
metacognitive knowledge of EFL reading was classified into three groups:
person, task, and strategy. The data were coded based on audio recordings
from the semi-structured interviews. Findings revealed that EFL learners’ use
of metacognitive reading strategies varied with proficiency levels: individuals
with higher reading scores were more aware of reading strategies, whereas those
with lower reading scores applied different reading strategies less proficiently.
Among the evaluated techniques, comprehension monitoring was one of the
most beneficial for readers. Zhang’s study provided evidence for the role of
metacognition in reading comprehension. Metacognition encompasses both
knowledge and regulatory skills that help control one’s cognitive processes.
The results also suggest that aspects of metacognition, knowledge, and regula-
tion are instrumental to reading; participants’ understanding of grammatical and
discoursal relationships was a prerequisite for accurate text comprehension.
EFL readers must possess metacognitive strategic knowledge. Recognising the
importance of such knowledge can drive students to reflect on their EFL
learning experiences and thus increase their metacognitive skills.
Research has consistently highlighted a robust relationship between meta-
cognitive instruction and reading proficiency. Scholars have found that people
with stronger reading skills tend to display stronger metacognitive skills.
Targeted metacognitive instruction can also improve one’s reading ability.
Zhang et al. (2008) focused on eighteen primary school students and shed
further light on this correlation. The authors observed that learners could be
guided to develop metacognitive strategies for reading comprehension. The
young readers demonstrated a commendable ability to employ flexible, appro-
priate reading techniques. However, students’ choices were contingent on
language proficiency: higher-proficiency learners at higher grade levels exhib-
ited a wider repertoire of reading strategies. These proficient readers could
activate prior knowledge, make connections with the text, identify text struc-
tures, pose questions about the content, determine contextual information, and
summarise their readings. Notably, the students also reported their thoughts
while reading. These findings present practical ways for teachers to help
students understand main parts of the reading process. By making students
aware of the requirements of learning to read, educators can empower them to
self-regulate their own reading experiences. Students hence need to develop
comprehension strategies that bolster their text-based understanding and
prepare them to navigate reading tasks more fluidly.

The signiﬁcance of metacognitive instruction in reading extends to Chinese

young learners as well. Teng (2020a) examined how metacognitive reading
strategy instruction among Hong Kong English language learners improved
their reading comprehension. The study involved twenty-five fifth graders. Data
were collected from the notes learners took while reading, learners’ post-
reading reflection reports, teacher-facilitated group discussions, and two types
of reading tests. The young students were taught a combination of strategies
intended to gradually foster independent reading skills. The intervention
unfolded in three stages: read and answer, reflect, and report and discuss.
Participants identified twenty metacognitive knowledge factors that positively
influenced their reading experiences. Furthermore, compared with students in
the control group who did not receive metacognitive instruction, the interven-
tion group attained higher scores on reading comprehension. These results
provide support for the hypothesis that metacognitive knowledge enables learn-
ers to recognise when, why, and how to adapt their strategic choices. Students
can then plan, monitor, and evaluate their reading processes more effectively.
Other studies, such as that by F. Teng and Zhang (2021), have longitudinally
investigated the role of metacognitive knowledge in reading and writing. These
efforts have revealed that learners’ metacognitive knowledge (as well as their
reading and writing proficiency) evolves throughout primary school. This
developmental process is cumulative and features widening personal differ-
ences over time. Additionally, positive associations have been observed
between one’s initial levels of metacognitive knowledge, reading proficiency,
and writing performance and the subsequent growth rates of each. These results
convey dynamic relationships between metacognitive knowledge, reading pro-
ficiency, and writing proficiency throughout primary school. Specifically,
a direct correlation has emerged between metacognitive knowledge and reading
comprehension: improvements in metacognitive knowledge correspond to
improvements in reading comprehension and vice versa. Baker’s (2017) asser-
tion that successful reading comprehension involves building a coherent mental
model of a text supports this relationship. Learners who struggle to construct
such a mental model may encounter difficulties when evaluating their meaning-
making process while reading – hence the reciprocal association between
metacognitive knowledge and reading comprehension. F. Teng and Zhang’s
(2021) study is unique in that it produced tentative support for the cyclical
development of metacognitive knowledge and reading comprehension. This
pattern implies that as young learners’ metacognitive knowledge increases over
time, their reading comprehension should increase as well. That tendency
underscores the need to nurture students’ metacognitive awareness and know-
ledge; doing so can promote reading comprehension in the long term.

A review of literature on metacognition in reading reveals that reading com-

prehension is a complex process requiring students to develop an awareness of
print. This understanding can be achieved by cultivating metacognitive know-
ledge, which enables students to monitor their understanding and engage in
reflective thinking about the text. Available research suggests a causal relation-
ship between metacognitive instruction and reading proficiency; that is, people
with stronger reading skills usually possess stronger metacognitive skills.
Targeted metacognitive instruction may also improve reading ability. Despite
empirical evidence of this relationship, correlation does not equate to causation:
research using rigorous experimental designs remains necessary to definitively
link metacognitive instruction with reading proficiency. Furthermore, although
scholars have described EFL learners’ varied use of metacognitive reading
strategies based on language proficiency, more stands to be uncovered about
these learners’ specific techniques. Insights into effective methods for teaching
and cultivating metacognitive strategies would be invaluable in enhancing read-
ing instruction for EFL learners.
A summary of information in the above-mentioned studies can be summar-
ised in the following Table 1.

3.2 Critical Issues

3.2.1 How Can Metacognitive Instruction Facilitate Reading?
Metacognition plays a key part in reading and prompts particular questions:
How do students’ monitoring and regulation processes influence their reading
outcomes? More importantly, how can instruction support these reading pro-
cesses? A major aspect of this field entails understanding who performs moni-
toring and regulation, when these processes occur, the environmental factors
that stimulate them, and how they correlate to reading performance. Given the
educational potential of metacognition, many studies have explored interven-
tions designed to enhance reading skills – especially these treatments’ impacts
on students’ reading abilities (e.g., Urban et al., 2023).
Metacognitive instruction, which can be broadly defined as pedagogical
approaches aimed at improving domain-general, higher-order thinking processes
in reading, seeks to develop in students self-regulatory strategies that foster
engaged, strategic, and metacognitive comprehension. Yet teachers often face
challenges to the scaffolded incorporation of reading strategies into daily classroom
instruction. Planning is a critical stage preceding reading: strategic readers establish
goals (e.g., remembering or comprehension), scan the text to gather information
about it, activate prior knowledge, choose suitable strategies, allocate sufficient
resources (e.g., reading time), and predict outcomes (Pressley & Gaskins, 2006).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms

Table 1 Key understanding of metacognition in reading

Aspect Key understanding References

Pedagogical support Pedagogical support is essential for developing strategies Lehtonen (2000)
that facilitate meaningful reading. It helps learners build
metacognitive knowledge, which is crucial for reading
efficiency and confidence.
Nature of reading Reading is an active and interactive process where readers McLeod and McLaughlin (1986)
use their language knowledge to predict and construct
meaning. Metacognitive awareness allows readers to
employ diverse strategies for processing texts.
Longitudinal role of Metacognitive knowledge and reading proficiency evolve F. Teng and Zhang (2021)
metacognition in reading over time, showing a reciprocal relationship.
Improvements in metacognitive knowledge lead to better
reading comprehension. The study supports the cyclical
development of these skills, emphasising the need to
nurture metacognitive awareness for long-term reading
comprehension improvement.
Strategy use and proficiency Successful and unsuccessful EFL students use distinct Zhang et al. (2008)
strategies. Strategy use varies with language proficiency
and task requirements. Higher proficiency learners are
more aware of and use reading strategies more effectively.
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms

Table 1 (cont.)

Aspect Key understanding References

Classiﬁcation of EFL Classiﬁcation of EFL learners’ metacognitive knowledge Zhang (2001)

learners’ metacognitive into person, task, and strategy categories. Higher reading
knowledge scores correlated with greater awareness of reading
strategies, particularly comprehension monitoring.
Metacognition encompasses knowledge and regulatory
skills essential for reading comprehension.
Metacognition and reading Metacognitive instruction improved reading comprehension F. Teng (2020a)
proficiency in Hong Kong fifth graders. The study involved stages of
reading, reflection, and discussion, leading to higher
comprehension scores compared to a control group.
Metacognitive knowledge helps learners adapt strategies
effectively.
Metacognition in Language Teaching 29

However, teachers in classroom settings are often ill equipped to impart such
strategies to students. The goal of strategy instruction is to gradually transfer
responsibility for selecting, applying, monitoring, and evaluating strategy use
from teachers to students. Classroom teachers’ under-preparedness to fulﬁl this
objective hampers metacognitive strategy implementation and undermines stu-
dents’ potential to become independent, proﬁcient readers.

3.2.2 When to Facilitate Metacognitive Instruction for Reading?

Metacognitive knowledge heavily contributes to the longitudinal development

of young learners’ reading and writing skills (F. Teng & Zhang, 2021). While
children rely on rehearsal strategies in the early stages of reading, by fourth
grade, they become more capable of actively managing their reading and
adopting complex cognitive strategies if given strategy instruction (Baker,
2015). F. Teng (2020a) lent support to these findings, documenting that young
learners move from an initial reliance on reading and completing exercises to
being aware of a wider repertoire of factors influencing their reading. F. Teng
(2020a) particularly focused on fifth-grade learners in Hong Kong.
An important consideration in metacognitive instruction for reading is the
age at which it should be introduced and how it should be implemented.
Metacognitive accuracy may vary with age: younger adults tend to have higher
metacognitive accuracy in assessing their cognitive capacity, whereas older
adults excel in evaluating their ability to selectively remember information
(Urban et al., 2023). This discrepancy suggests there may be separate metacog-
nitive mechanisms which aging differentially affects.
Some people need to devote more cognitive effort to specific tasks as they
age, and their cognitive resources may deplete more quickly while doing so.
Older adults might then become more discerning when choosing tasks that
warrant cognitive resources; this deliberation can be seen as an adaptive
response to the reduced cognitive resources available for reading. To explore
age-related differences in metacognitive processes, it is advisable to gather
evidence on reading strategies’ efficacy among young and adult EFL learners
by examining the techniques that these groups employ. Creative methods (e.g.,
reading and writing workshops, reflections, group discussions, and metacogni-
tive strategy instruction) can also be compared.

3.2.3 How to Facilitate Metacognitive Instruction for Reading?

Another crucial aspect is how to facilitate metacognitive instruction for reading.

Several factors need to be addressed, including the training sequencing and
duration, task selection for teaching and training, instructional delivery (e.g.,

chosen models), and applicable transfer tasks and assessments (Azevedo,

2020). The sequencing of training refers to the order in which metacognitive
knowledge and skills for reading are taught. A sequence may begin with
declarative knowledge (i.e., about strategies and processes), followed by pro-
cedural knowledge (i.e., about how to use strategies) and then conditional
knowledge (i.e., about when and why to use them). This structure allows
learners to develop a solid foundation of metacognitive awareness in reading.
The length of training regimens is another consideration. Declarative know-
ledge typically develops more quickly than procedural or conditional know-
ledge; therefore, the time required to master each form of knowledge may vary.
Learners need sufficient time and practice to internalise metacognitive strat-
egies and apply them effectively. Task selection is also central to teaching and
training. Teachers must decide whether to use the same tasks for a specific topic
or in different domains. Relatedly, teachers may consider using isomorphic
tasks that share underlying structures across topics or domains. Selecting
suitable tasks helps build metacognitive awareness and facilitates skill transfer
to various reading contexts. The question of who or what should deliver reading
instruction and training is important to ponder, too. Options include teachers,
parents, peers, experts, or even artificial agents such as virtual humans or robots.
The optimal approach might involve a combination of human and artificial
agents, leveraging the unique strengths of each to enhance metacognitive
instruction. The chosen instructional model will ultimately guide training.
The method could entail expert modelling while students engage in vicarious
learning, followed by practice using acquired metacognitive knowledge with
adaptive scaffolding from experts. Once mastery is demonstrated, scaffolding
can gradually decrease, such that learners slowly begin to use metacognitive
strategies independently. This cycle can then be repeated for subsequent reading
areas to foster domain-general and domain-specific metacognitive skills. New
transfer tasks and assessments need to be developed to monitor learners’
acquisition, internalisation, retention, retrieval, use, and transfer of metacogni-
tive knowledge for reading comprehension. These tasks should measure learn-
ers’ ability to deploy metacognitive strategies in different reading contexts in
addition to tracking overall metacognitive awareness.

3.3 Summary
This section highlights the role of metacognitive strategic knowledge in pro-
moting individuals’ awareness of their learning processes. Encouraging EFL
readers to reﬂect on their own reading processes enables these individuals to use
strategic knowledge that enhances their reading effectiveness. Teachers need to

support students in applying effective strategies; doing so is key to improving

students’ reading comprehension. Therefore, metacognition should be part of
reading instruction.
Teachers implement numerous instructional methods, such as reflection,
modelling, reading and writing workshops, and integrated activity sequences
(e.g., reporting and discussing thought processes). These approaches typically
focus on both the text and the reading process. They are meant to help readers
become more aware of major aspects of the reading process, hone a range of
reading-related skills, and ensure that metacognitive instruction in reading
remains dynamic and innovative. Learners naturally benefit from being able
to critically evaluate text-based content and judge its value.
A combination of methods can facilitate students’ independent exploration of
content knowledge and their capacity to overcome challenges while reading.
Approaches may include reading and writing workshops, reflective activities,
group discussions, and metacognitive strategy instruction. These opportunities
will empower students to engage with text, ultimately improving learners’
comprehension and problem solving.

4 Metacognition in Writing
Metacognition is clearly important in the writing context (Graham et al., 2018;
Harris et al., 2009; F. Teng, 2020b; F. Teng & Huang, 2019). Hacker et al. (2009)
even described writing as ‘applied metacognition’ (p. 160), highlighting the
connection between writing and metacognitive processes. As mentioned in
Section 3, metacognition is composed of two sub-components (i.e., knowledge
and regulation). The two sub-components are crucial for the writing process.
The knowledge component serves as the basis for student writers’ decisions
about how to approach a writing task. The regulation component enables them
to consciously control the writing process by effectively managing their cogni-
tive load and employing relevant regulation strategies (Harris et al., 2009).
Planning, monitoring, and evaluation processes have been identified as key
regulation components during writing that greatly influence students’ sub-
processes (e.g., Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Hayes,
1996; Kellogg, 1996). These findings provide evidence of metacognition’s
integral role in writing. This section offers a comprehensive synthesis of the
role that metacognition plays in the writing process.

4.1 Understanding Metacognition in Writing

Research on metacognition in the writing context can be categorised into two
primary lines of inquiry. The ﬁrst agenda focuses on metacognitive strategies’

predictive impacts on writing. The second concerns how metacognitive training

affects writing performance.
Scholars have scrutinised the impacts of various metacognitive strategies on
writing performance, with Sophie Lin Teng contributing generously in this
regard. One of her highly cited studies (L. Teng & Zhang, 2016) involved 790
undergraduate students from 6 universities in northeastern China. Findings
revealed that six out of nine SRL strategies significantly predicted EFL writing
proficiency: text processing, idea planning, goal-oriented monitoring and evalu-
ating, feedback handling, emotional control, and motivational self-talk. In
another study, L. Teng and Zhang (2018) examined the predictive effects of
motivational regulation strategies on EFL students’ writing performance, medi-
ated by SRL strategies. The sample included 512 undergraduate students in
mainland China. Structural equation modelling confirmed a partial mediating
effect, such that motivational regulation strategies influenced participants’
writing performance both directly and indirectly. These strategies also signifi-
cantly correlated with students’ reported use of SRL strategies related to
cognition, metacognition, and social behaviour. However, only cognitive and
metacognitive strategies were significant mediators in this model; social-
behavioural strategies were not. L. Teng et al. (2020) used mixed methods to
investigate the relationship between writing proficiency levels and motivational
regulation strategies in an EFL context. They specifically evaluated 389
Chinese undergraduates’ writing proficiency and responses to a self-report
questionnaire. Results indicated that participants with high levels of writing
proficiency reported greater usage of mastery and performance self-talk, inter-
est enhancement, and emotional control compared with students who displayed
low writing proficiency. This discrepancy suggests that intrinsic motivational
regulation strategies positively correlate with writing proficiency levels.
Qualitative data have supported this conjecture, showing that these strategies
can help high-proficiency students develop a sense of achievement, sustain their
learning efforts, and cultivate a passion for English-language writing. Sun et al.
(2023) also used a mixed-methods approach to investigate the relationship
between EFL learners’ metacognitive experiences in learning to write and
their writing proficiency. Four hundred and forty-nine second-year undergradu-
ates were invited to complete a self-report questionnaire and a writing task.
From these participants, ten students were invited to complete follow-up inter-
views. Quantitative and qualitative findings showed that students at different
writing proficiency levels differed in the richness of their metacognitive experi-
ences in writing.
In recent years, L. Teng (2024) explored individual differences in motiv-
ational beliefs, self-efficacy, and SRL strategies in writing. A total of 389

learners completed questionnaires covering several factors: motivational beliefs

(extrinsic and intrinsic goal orientation, task value, and control of learning
belief); self-efficacy (linguistic self-efficacy, performance self-efficacy, and
self-regulatory efficacy); and SRL strategies (cognition, metacognition, social
behaviour, and motivational regulation). Multiple regression analyses revealed
that motivational beliefs forecasted SRL strategies. In particular, task value and
intrinsic goal orientation were significant predictors of nine sub-factors of SRL
strategies. Self-efficacy emerged as a strong predictor of metacognitive, cogni-
tive, and motivational regulation strategies. Basically, the more positively
students view their self-efficacy for completing tasks, the more committed
they are to using various strategies to alleviate cognitive burdens and regulate
their emotions to sustain learning efforts.
Mark Teng’s studies have offered valuable insights into the role of metacog-
nitive strategies in writing. F. Teng and Huang (2019) applied L. Teng and
Zhang’s (2016) SRL writing strategies in a Chinese secondary school setting
with 682 students. The purposes were to identify the roles of self-regulated
writing strategies in EFL students’ writing proficiency and to determine
whether strategy use varied across students. Participants’ self-regulated writing
strategies indeed influenced writing performance. These results supported the
validity of a higher-order self-regulation model that focuses on cognition,
metacognition, social behaviour, and motivational regulation (e.g., see
Zimmerman, 2011). In line with Kizilcec et al. (2017), students’ personal
differences affected their SRL strategy use. For example, age, gender, English
learning experience, time commitment to writing, familiarity with writing
topics, examination experience, school prestige, and interest in learning
English all played a part in students’ reported use of self-regulated writing
strategies.
F. Teng (2020e) also emphasised that metacognitive regulation – encompass-
ing the self-regulatory skills of planning, monitoring, and evaluating – is more
crucial for writing performance than metacognitive knowledge. Learners with
stronger regulatory skills or higher levels of metacognitive awareness should
thus be better at establishing reasonable writing goals and selecting suitable
writing strategies, which will significantly enhance their writing performance.
In a separate study, F. Teng et al. (2022) validated metacognitive academic
writing strategies and evaluated their predictive effects on academic writing
performance in a foreign language context. The results supported the antici-
pated impacts of eight aspects: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge,
conditional knowledge, planning, monitoring, evaluating, information manage-
ment, and debugging. These strategies were interpreted with reference to the
two core paradigms of metacognition – metacognitive knowledge and

regulation – as conceptualised by Flavell (1979). Further extending this research,

F. Teng et al. (2022) assessed self-regulatory writing strategies among young EFL
learners. The authors identified six strategy-related factors – writing planning,
goal-oriented monitoring, goal-oriented evaluation, emotional control, memor-
isation, and metacognitive judgement – that had significant predictive effects on
secondary school students’ writing performance. Additionally, F. Teng and Yue
(2023) highlighted the predictive impacts of metacognitive strategies on aca-
demic writing (i.e., declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge as well as
planning, monitoring, evaluating, information management, and debugging).
They also discerned correlations between metacognition, critical thinking skills,
and academic writing, underscoring metacognitive strategies’ comprehensive
impact on writing performance.
Four other pieces of research have recently reinforced the predictive effects
of metacognition in writing. F. Teng and Qin (2024) observed that eight types of
metacognitive writing strategies – motivation and interest, debugging strat-
egies, declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, text-processing skills,
planning, monitoring, and evaluating – significantly predicted learners’ writing
performance in a multimedia environment. F. Teng and Ma (2024) assessed
metacognition-based feedback literacy; their study was the first to evaluate
student feedback literacy from a metacognitive perspective. Results indicated
that feedback-related strategies, including participation, motivation, feedback-
related monitoring techniques, and strategy knowledge, had predictive effects
on EFL learners’ academic writing performance. F. Teng and Zhang (2024b)
conducted a pair of studies within a multimedia writing environment: the first
study validated L2 self-regulated strategies in writing; the second demonstrated
the predictive effects of self-regulated strategies, working memory, and L2
proficiency on L2 writing performance. Lastly, Shen and F. Teng (2024)
explored artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted writing, a contemporary topic
given the prevalence of AI. Their findings supported the predictive effects of
self-directed learning competency on AI-assisted writing and highlighted its
correlation with learners’ critical thinking skills. These recent studies collect-
ively underscore the significance of metacognitive strategies in enhancing
writing performance across diverse contexts and modalities, from multimedia
environments to AI-assisted writing.
Table 2 presents the synthesised information the predictive effects of meta-
cognitive strategies in writing.
The reviewed body of research provides a holistic picture of how metacogni-
tive and SRL strategies affect EFL students’ writing performance, illuminating
the intricate relationship between metacognitive strategies and writing profi-
ciency. Scholars have adopted robust methods and offered actionable

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms

Table 2 Predictive effects of metacognitive strategies in writing

Study Participants & setting Methodology Key ﬁndings

L. Teng & Zhang 790 undergraduate students Analysis of SRL strategies Six SRL strategies (text processing, idea planning,
(2016) from six universities in predicting EFL writing goal-oriented monitoring and evaluating,
northeastern China proficiency feedback handling, emotional control,
motivational self-talk) significantly predicted
writing proficiency.
L. Teng & Zhang 512 undergraduate students in Structural equation modelling to Motivational regulation strategies influenced
(2018) mainland China examine motivational regulation writing performance directly and indirectly via
strategies’ effects SRL strategies. Cognitive and metacognitive
strategies were significant mediators, while
social-behavioural strategies were not.
L. Teng et al. 389 Chinese undergraduates Mixed methods to assess writing High writing proficiency correlated with greater
(2020) proficiency and motivational use of mastery and performance self-talk,
regulation strategies interest enhancement, and emotional control.
These strategies fostered a sense of achievement
and sustained learning efforts in high-
proficiency students.
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms

Table 2 (cont.)

Study Participants & setting Methodology Key ﬁndings

L. Teng (2024) 389 university students in Questionnaires on motivational Motivational beliefs predicted SRL strategies,
China beliefs, self-efficacy, and SRL with task value and intrinsic goal orientation as
strategies significant predictors. Self-efficacy strongly
predicted metacognitive, cognitive, and
motivational regulation strategies.
F. Teng & Huang 682 Chinese secondary school Application of L. Teng & Zhang’s Self-regulated writing strategies influenced
(2019) students (2016) SRL writing strategies writing performance. Strategy use varied across
students due to personal differences like age,
gender, English learning experience, and
interest in learning English.
F. Teng (2020e) 882 Chinese university Questionnaire on metacognition Metacognitive regulation (planning, monitoring,
students and a writing test evaluating) is crucial for writing performance.
Strong regulatory skills enhance goal-setting
and strategy selection, improving writing
outcomes.
F.Teng, Qin, & 664 Chinese university Validation of metacognitive Eight strategies (declarative knowledge,
Wang (2022) students academic writing strategies procedural knowledge, conditional knowledge,
through SEM planning, monitoring, evaluating, information
management, debugging) predicted academic
writing performance.
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms

F. Teng et al. Two samples of 669 and 239 Assessment of self-regulatory Six strategy-related factors (writing planning,
(2022) secondary school students writing strategies through EFA goal-oriented monitoring, goal-oriented
and CFA evaluation, emotional control, memorisation,
metacognitive judgement) signiﬁcantly
predicted writing performance.
F. Teng & Yue 644 Chinese university Examination of metacognitive Metacognitive strategies (declarative, procedural,
(2023) students strategies on academic writing conditional knowledge, planning, monitoring,
evaluating, information management,
debugging) predicted academic writing
performance, correlating with critical thinking
skills.
F. Teng & Qin 957 Chinese university Validation of metacognitive Eight metacognitive strategies (motivation and
(2024) students writing strategies in interest, debugging, declarative knowledge,
a multimedia environment procedural knowledge, text-processing,
planning, monitoring, evaluating) predicted
writing performance.
F. Teng & Ma 708 Chinese university Assessment of metacognition- Feedback-related strategies (participation,
(2024) students based feedback literacy motivation, monitoring, strategy knowledge)
predicted academic writing performance.
F. Teng & Zhang Two samples of 400 and 406 Validation of L2 self-regulated Self-regulated strategies, working memory, and L2
(2024b) Chinese university students strategies in a multimedia proﬁciency predicted L2 writing performance
writing environment
38 Language Teaching

implications for educators, richly contributing to cognitive writing models.

However, authors have predominantly used Chinese EFL student samples;
this condition raises questions about findings’ applicability in other cultural
and linguistic contexts. The long-term impacts of these strategies are also
unclear, necessitating longitudinal studies to track sustained effects.
Furthermore, although these studies have acknowledged the complexity of
metacognitive knowledge, none explored how associated nuances inform writ-
ing outcomes. The interaction effects between strategies and individual differ-
ences also have yet to be thoroughly examined, and qualitative insights are not
as prominent as quantitative ones. Given these constraints, more studies are
needed to understand the roles of metacognitive and SRL strategies in enhan-
cing writing performance. Related work will deepen the understanding of how
best to support student writers.
The second issue relates to training-oriented interventions, which aim to
equip students with the knowledge and skills required to reflect on and regulate
their writing processes effectively (e.g., Nguyen & Gu, 2013; F. Teng, 2016).
Metacognitive training interventions often involve explicit instruction on meta-
cognitive strategies, such as planning, monitoring, and evaluating one’s writing.
Studies have shown promising results overall, indicating that metacognitive
training can improve various aspects of writing (e.g., content organisation, idea
generation, revision skills, and general writing quality). By cultivating meta-
cognitive awareness and providing students with strategies to regulate their
writing, interventions on fostering metacognitive awareness empower learners
to become more autonomous, reflective, and effective writers.
An illustrative study by Larkin (2009) delved into this topic by investigating
how metacognitive instruction affected the writing abilities of 172 sixth-grade
students attending 5 primary schools in England. Taking a qualitative approach,
Larkin (2009) observed twenty-five writing lessons and documented her inter-
pretations of each. Data collection consisted of roughly twenty-five hours of
video-based observations along with analyses of teachers’ reflections and notes.
Findings showed that young learners were able to engage in metacognitive talk
and purposefully employ metacognitive strategies while co-constructing writ-
ten texts. Through metacognitive instruction, students developed the capacity to
reflect on their writing, monitor their progress, and make intentional decisions
to enhance the quality of their written work. The study provided valuable
information about metacognitive instruction’s potential to empower young
learners to actively deploy metacognitive processes while writing.
Nguyen and Gu (2013) conducted a mixed-method study to inspect the
impact of metacognitive strategy training on writing performance among 130
third-year English majors in a Vietnamese EFL setting. The researchers created

a nine-lesson metacognitive strategy training programme, which covered com-

ponents such as planning, monitoring, and evaluating in the context of writing.
Participants were separated into three groups: one group received strategy-based
instruction, and the other two groups served as controls. The participants
who received metacognitive strategy instruction demonstrated significantly
improved writing performance compared with their control-group counterparts.
Specifically, students who completed metacognitive training were more skilled at
planning, monitoring, and evaluating their writing tasks. Group interviews were
held immediately after the training with several participants from the experimen-
tal group. All five students reported changes in their approach to writing tasks
since receiving metacognitive training. They stated that they thought more
deliberately prior to writing, paid greater attention to their essays’ content, and
actively searched for relevant information on the given topic. Moreover, one
student remarked that she had learnt effective techniques for organising her essay,
indicating progress in the structural dimension of her writing.
Mark Teng has conducted extensive research on using cooperative metacog-
nitive training to enhance university students’ writing. F. Teng’s (2016) study
involved 120 university students who were exposed to 1 of 3 conditions:
a cooperative learning condition with embedded metacognitive instruction
(COOP + META), a cooperative learning condition (COOP), and a no-
treatment control group. Quantitative analysis revealed that participants in the
COOP + META group achieved the highest mean scores on a compare-and-
contrast essay, followed by participants in the COOP condition and the control
group. Including metacognitive instruction within a cooperative learning envir-
onment thus positively influenced students’ writing performance. In addition,
this study’s qualitative findings shed light on the strategies that participants in
the COOP + META group used to regulate their cognitive processes while
writing. These techniques consisted of engaging in reflective thinking before
writing, planning the written content, better organising the content, monitoring
their progress, choosing appropriate writing strategies, assessing their written
work, and making meaningful connections while writing. Notably, students in
the COOP+META group planned, monitored, and evaluated their writing
process more frequently than the other groups. These inclinations imply that
this group’s metacognitive training helped them engage in metacognitive pro-
cesses and effectively regulate their writing.
In another study, F. Teng (2020b) assigned 120 university students into three
groups: group feedback guidance (GFG), self-explanation guidance (SEG), and
a control group (CG). Learners in the GFG and SEG groups both received
metacognitive instruction; however, learners in the GFG condition focused on
providing and receiving feedback in writing, whereas learners in the SEG

focused on self-constructing explanations or arguments. Ultimately, the GFG

group outperformed the SEG and CG groups in terms of English writing as
measured by an immediate and delayed writing test. An analysis of the groups’
journal entries indicated that participants in the GFG group displayed better
awareness of writing task perception and stronger self-regulation of writing.
These students also applied metacognitive strategies more often than their peers
in the other groups.
F. Teng (2020c) investigated how collaborative writing supported by inter-
active whiteboard technology could affect students’ writing performance. The
study centred on 120 university EFL students. Quantitative results showed that
integrating this technology with collaborative writing instruction led to the greatest
improvement in students’ writing performance, followed by traditional whiteboard-
integrated collaborative writing and, lastly, traditional collaborative writing instruc-
tion without whiteboard technology. Qualitative results indicated that the patterns
and timing of metacognitive activities varied across the three groups. Learners
who received interactive whiteboard–integrated collaborative writing instruction
displayed higher levels of metacognitive activities and were more engaged in
co-regulation than other groups. The interactive whiteboard condition facilitated
participants’ adoption of writing strategies that promoted emerging cognitive func-
tions and timely execution of routines during collaborative writing. Team members
pooled their linguistic knowledge, tracked the writing process, and decided on
strategies or corrective feedback to align their efforts and produce the intended
writing output. Consequently, learners created signiﬁcantly better written products.
F. Teng (2021a) explored the potential effectiveness of incorporating meta-
cognitive prompts, a form of metacognitive guidance, into collaborative writing
to enhance academic English writing skills. A set of 160 university students was
divided into 4 instructional groups: collaborative writing with embedded meta-
cognitive guidance, metacognitive training without collaborative writing, col-
laborative writing without metacognitive training, and individual learning. Four
test components were considered: reproduction of text structure knowledge,
application of text structure knowledge, reduction of text content, and abstract
writing. Findings highlighted the importance of introducing metacognitive
strategies into collaborative writing to develop university EFL students’ aca-
demic writing abilities. Metacognitive prompts in collaborative writing
enhanced participants’ skills in using prompts to share knowledge, transform
their knowledge for academic communication, and apply their knowledge to
beneﬁt peers. This process also facilitated learners’ coordination in planning
ideas, generating text, and reviewing ideas and text. Acquiring academic writ-
ing skills involves both observation and practice – both of which improved
participants’ academic writing skills in this case.

F. Teng (2022a) examined the effects of cooperative metacognitive instruc-

tion on university EFL learners’ writing skills and metacognitive awareness.
The study involved three groups: a cooperative learning group with metacogni-
tive instruction (EG), a metacognitive instruction-only group, and a cooperative
learning-only group. The EG students outperformed the others in academic
writing as well as metacognitive regulation. Participants whose metacognitive
regulation did not improve were less likely to show significantly enhanced
writing skills. Learners who received cooperative metacognitive instruction
were better equipped to improve their writing performance compared with
those who studied in cooperative settings without metacognitive interventions
or those who received metacognitive instruction without cooperative learning.
Similar results were reported by Teng (2022b), such that learners exposed to
metacognitive prompts in a cooperative learning setting performed best in
metacognitive awareness and EFL writing.
F. Teng and Huang (2023) tested four instructional approaches – metacognitive
instruction in a collaborative writing setting, metacognitive instruction in an
individual setting, collaborative writing, and individual writing – with a sample
of 352 Chinese university EFL students. Combining metacognitive instruction
and collaborative writing promoted writing accuracy but neither fluency nor
complexity. One explanation for this finding is that blending metacognitive
prompts into a collaborative writing setting afforded the participants more oppor-
tunities to engage with different aspects of writing while composing essays
together. However, none of the four conditions simultaneously increased accur-
acy, fluency, and complexity. The retrieval of lexical complexity may have
interfered, as finding precise words can reduce fluency. Focusing on clauses’
accuracy could also compromise their complexity. Developing writing complex-
ity, accuracy, and fluency concurrently might have been particularly challenging
for Chinese university EFL learners. It is therefore important to acknowledge the
assumed competition for attentional resources when writing.
Researchers have also considered training young students’ self-regulated
strategies for writing. For example, F. Teng (2019) looked into how text
structure and self-regulated strategies affect young ESL learners’ writing qual-
ity in Hong Kong. The following three conditions applied: text structure
instruction (TSI), self-regulated strategy instruction (SRSI), and a CG. Each
consisted of twenty one-hour sessions, with measures including a written sum-
mary and an essay. Ultimately, compared with traditional instruction, the TSI
and SRSI groups exhibited better writing outcomes. Teaching self-regulated
strategies indeed improved participants’ writing quality, and teaching about text
structure enhanced their capacity to summarise main ideas.

In another study (F. Teng, 2020d), 144 Chinese primary school students were
divided into four groups: self-regulated strategy development + collaborative
modelling of text structure, collaborative modelling of text structure only, self-
regulated strategy development only, and traditional instruction. Outcome
measures included content comprehension, summarisation of main ideas, and
essay writing. The combination of self-regulated strategy development and
collaborative modelling of text structure was found to be particularly useful
for increasing students’ content comprehension and writing quality. These
results suggest that writing is a complex process requiring students to master
task-specific strategies and develop metacognitive awareness for regulating and
controlling strategy use.
F. Teng (2021b) later performed research in which 178 primary school
students were separated into four groups: text structure instruction + self-
regulation strategy development (TSI + SRSD), TSI only, SRSD only, and
a CG. The aim was to investigate potential improvements in summarising
main ideas and essay writing following the intervention. The TSI + SRSD
intervention was especially effective in enhancing participants’ abilities to
summarise main ideas and compose essays. Integrating TSI with SRSD instruc-
tion may enable learners to generate more ideas in their writing, plan more
elaborately, and produce syntactically accurate sentences. Thus, intensive train-
ing in text structure knowledge may be necessary for primary school students to
fully benefit from SRSD interventions. This finding signals that multicompo-
nent interventions geared towards core writing processes (e.g., metacognition,
self-regulation, and text structure) could be helpful for young student writers.
L. Teng and Zhang (2020) conducted a five-month study administering SRL
strategy-based instruction to one group of students while a CG received
a standard academic writing course for the same duration. Participants com-
pleted pre-, post-, and delayed post-writing tests along with self-report ques-
tionnaires at the beginning and end of the intervention. Results demonstrated
that the intervention group significantly outperformed the CG on the post- and
delayed post-writing tests. Students in the intervention group became more
proactive in employing a variety of SRL strategies, including metacognitive
strategies, social-behavioural strategies, and motivational regulation strategies.
They also demonstrated greater tendencies to consider key elements of effective
composition and to monitor their knowledge mastery in relation to specific
learning goals. Furthermore, they explored different methods to engage more
enthusiastically with writing tasks. The intervention also enhanced participants’
self-efficacy in using linguistic knowledge to construct written texts.
Table 3 presents synthesised information on metacognitive training for
writing

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms

Table 3 Intervention of metacognitive training for writing

Participants &
Study setting Methodology Key findings
Larkin (2009) 172 sixth-grade Qualitative study with 25 writing lessons Students engaged in metacognitive talk and
students in five observed, 25 hours of video-based strategies, enhancing their ability to reflect,
primary schools observations, teacher reflections monitor, and improve their writing through
in England metacognitive instruction.
Nguyen and Gu 130 third-year Mixed-method study with a nine-lesson Students receiving metacognitive strategy
(2013) English majors in metacognitive strategy training program instruction showed improved writing
a Vietnamese performance, particularly in planning,
EFL setting monitoring, and evaluating writing tasks.
Participants reported deliberate thinking and
better content attention.
F. Teng (2016) 120 university Cooperative learning with embedded COOP + META group achieved highest essay
students metacognitive instruction (COOP + scores. Metacognitive instruction in
META), COOP,. and control group cooperative settings enhanced reflective
thinking, planning, monitoring, and
evaluating writing processes.
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms

Table 3 (cont.)

Participants &
Study setting Methodology Key ﬁndings

F. Teng (2020b) 120 university Group feedback guidance (GFG), self- GFG group outperformed others in writing
students in China explanation guidance (SEG), and control tests. Participants showed better task
group perception and self-regulation, using
metacognitive strategies more frequently.
F. Teng (2020c) 120 Chinese Collaborative writing with interactive Interactive whiteboard condition led to greatest
university EFL whiteboard technology writing improvement. Students engaged in
students higher metacognitive activities and co-
regulation, improving writing strategy
adoption.
F. Teng (2020d) 144 Chinese Self-regulated strategy development + Combination of strategies improved content
primary school collaborative modelling of text structure comprehension and writing quality. Mastery
students of task-speciﬁc strategies and metacognitive
awareness was crucial for writing
improvement.
F. Teng (2021a) 160 university Collaborative writing with metacognitive Metacognitive prompts in collaborative writing
students in China guidance enhanced academic writing skills,
coordination, and knowledge transformation.
|
F. Teng (2021b) 178 primary school Text structure instruction + self-regulation TSI + SRSD intervention effectively enhanced
students in China strategy development (TSI + SRSD) summarisation and essay writing skills.
Intensive text structure knowledge training
was beneﬁcial for young writers.
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms

F. Teng (2022a) University EFL Cooperative metacognitive instruction EG group outperformed others in writing and
learners in China metacognitive regulation. Cooperative
metacognitive instruction improved writing
performance and metacognitive awareness.
F. Teng & Huang 352 Chinese COOP+META, COOP, META, and control Combining metacognitive instruction with
(2023) university EFL group collaborative writing improved writing
students accuracy. Challenges in developing accuracy,
ﬂuency, and complexity concurrently were
noted.
F. Teng (2019) Young ESL learners Text structure instruction (TSI), self- TSI and SRSI groups showed better writing
in Hong Kong regulated strategy instruction (SRSI), and outcomes. Self-regulated strategies improved
control group writing quality, and text structure instruction
enhanced summarisation skills.
L. Teng & Zhang 80 Chinese SRL strategy-based instruction vs. standard Intervention group outperformed control group
(2020) university academic writing course; Pre-, post-, and in writing tests. Students became proactive in
students delayed post-writing tests with self-report using SRL strategies, improving self-efﬁcacy
questionnaires and engagement in writing tasks.
46 Language Teaching

The aforementioned studies underscore the effectiveness of metacognitive

instruction in enhancing metacognitive skills – particularly metacognitive
regulation – and improving writing performance. Writing is a multifaceted
socio-cognitive activity for which metacognitive instruction is highly efﬁca-
cious (Larkin, 2009). The recursive and cognitive nature of writing explains this
activity’s complexity (Kress, 1982). Research outcomes have substantiated
cognitive writing models, such as that by Hayes (1996), who conceptualised
writing as a hierarchically and recursively organised process. The Hayes model
posits that writing places sizable cognitive demands on working memory,
especially when some processes interrupt others. Text generation is viewed as
a problem-solving and goal-oriented activity that requires student writers to
adjust their objectives as they progress through a task. The complexity of
writing also arises from the need to transform ideas into written form, as
Scardamalia and Bereiter’s (1987) models (i.e., the knowledge-telling model
and the knowledge-transforming model) suggest. The knowledge-telling model
describes the processes of novice writers, who often work on a composition
without goal-directed planning. By contrast, the knowledge-transforming
model explains the composition process for mature writers, who can generally
control and direct their writing well. Evidence supports the training of students’
metacognitive awareness to potentially enhance metacognitive regulation.
However, the complexity of metacognitive knowledge is a lingering concern
and may partly explain why improvements in metacognitive knowledge are not
guaranteed. Another issue is that metacognitive training, despite possibly lead-
ing to enhanced metacognitive regulation and improved writing, may not
always result in immediate or observable gains in metacognitive knowledge
itself. Metacognitive regulation undoubtedly plays a part in writing. Learning to
write coherent, effective texts represents a long-time achievement in cognitive
development and is decidedly different from speech acquisition. The basic
writing processes – planning, language generation, and reviewing – and the
mental representations that must be generated and maintained in working
memory undergo developmental changes through maturation and learning
within speciﬁc writing tasks (Kellogg, 2008). Therefore, the complexity of
writing as a cognitive process necessitates a thoughtful, sustained approach to
metacognitive training.

4.2 Critical Issues

4.2.1 To What Extent Do Metacognitive Strategies Predict Writing?
A critical issue in writing-related research is determining the extent to which
metacognitive strategies predict writing performance. The above-mentioned

studies largely focused on strategies associated with metacognitive knowledge

and regulation. However, these strategies’ definitions may have overlap, which
could confuse readers. For instance, even though techniques like planning,
monitoring, and evaluating are routinely discussed, their applications can
vary. Some scholars might categorise text-processing skills under metacogni-
tive regulation, while others consider these capacities part of procedural know-
ledge. This inconsistency in terminology and classification can make it
challenging to draw conclusions about each strategy’s contributions.
Moreover, although the predictive effects of metacognitive strategies are
well-documented, the mechanisms through which these strategies influence
writing performance are not always clearly articulated. For example, how do
strategies like motivational self-talk and emotional control specifically enhance
the writing process? What roles do feedback-related strategies play in fostering
better writing outcomes? Another point of deliberation is the context in which
these strategies are used. Research involving multimedia environments, trad-
itional classroom settings, and AI-assisted writing platforms may yield distinct
insights into the effectiveness of metacognitive strategies. These techniques’
transferability across learning situations continues to merit exploration. More
longitudinal studies are also needed to track how metacognitive strategy
instruction affects writing performance in the long term. Most studies have
concentrated on short-term interventions and their immediate effects, leaving
a gap in our comprehension of how these strategies influence writing develop-
ment over time.
The final concern is the reliance on self-report data to assess metacognitive
strategy use. Self-report measures can be subjective and may not actually reflect
learners’ behaviours or cognitive processes. Students might overestimate or
underestimate their use of metacognitive strategies due to social desirability
bias, limited self-awareness, or misconstrued survey items. These possibilities
cast doubt on findings’ validity and whether self-report instruments truly
capture respondents’ experiences.

4.2.2 To What Extent Is Metacognitive Training Eﬀective for Writing?

Another core issue is determining the extent to which metacognitive training
helps improve writing skills. Research has revealed numerous positive effects
of metacognitive training on writing performance; however, several uncertain-
ties remain, particularly regarding how best to apply these ﬁndings in diverse
classroom settings. Much of the intervention research conducted thus far has
included speciﬁc, often brief training periods. These studies typically measure
immediate or short-term gains in writing performance, leaving ambiguities

about the long-term sustainability of the beneﬁts derived from metacognitive

training. Without longitudinal data, it is difficult to ascertain whether the
improvements seen in these studies will endure over time or wane once the
training period concludes.
Another point of interest is participant homogeneity. Most samples contained
individuals with similar proficiency – usually higher than the intermediate level.
It is therefore unclear whether the results are generalisable to a range of learners,
particularly those at lower proficiency levels. It is similarly uncertain whether
the metacognitive strategies that are effective for intermediate or advanced
learners will be equally beneficial for beginners or for students struggling
with foundational writing skills.
Furthermore, the controlled environments in which these studies have been
performed may not accurately reflect the complexities of real-world settings. In
classroom teaching, educators encounter myriad student needs, levels of motiv-
ation, and learning contexts, all of which can inform the effectiveness of
metacognitive training. The structured and often ideal conditions in research
studies may not capture the unpredictability of real teaching. Scholars still need
to explore how metacognitive training can be brought into existing curricula and
teaching practices. Teachers may require targeted training and resources to
successfully implement metacognitive strategies in their classrooms. The scal-
ability of such interventions and their adaptability to various educational con-
texts warrant further investigation.
The final factor that impacts the reliability of findings in the role of metacog-
nitive training on writing could be the diversified test on writing. This means
that the way writing ability is assessed can significantly influence the outcomes
of studies on metacognitive training. Diversified testing involves using a variety
of assessment types and formats to evaluate writing skills, which can include
timed essays, reflective journals, research papers, and creative writing tasks,
among others.

4.3 Summary
Writing is a developmental process that begins with simply recording thoughts
retrieved from long-term memory before evolving into the more complicated
task of transforming these thoughts and ideas into a new knowledge structure.
Student writers must employ various metacognitive strategies to achieve their
writing goals. For instance, planning, evaluating, problem solving, and revising
are essential aspects of writing performance. Effective metacognitive training
can encompass several key features: (a) facilitating self-planning, self-
monitoring, and self-evaluation of the writing process; (b) providing instruction

on speciﬁc drafting, editing, and revising strategies; and (c) adopting a dialogic
approach to presenting and modelling text structure knowledge.

5 Metacognition in Listening
Listening poses great challenges for L2 and FL learners due to constraints in
these students’ abilities to recognise words in streams of speech and apply
corresponding knowledge (Goh, 2023). These struggles are partly attributable
to the unidirectionality and intangible nature of the listening process (Goh,
2000; Vandergrift, 2007). This complexity likely contributes to why listening is
the least studied language skill compared to reading and writing, as it involves
implicit processes that are difficult to access (Vandergrift, 2007).
Metacognition, which encompasses learners’ knowledge about and regulation
of their cognitive activities during the learning process (Flavell, 1979), is crucial
for L2 listening. Metacognitive awareness can be linked to ‘listener awareness of
the cognitive processes involved in comprehension and the capacity to oversee,
regulate, and direct these processes’ (Vandergrift & Baker, 2018, p. 85). Low-
proficiency students have been shown to complete more diligent self-regulated
listening practice outside the classroom compared with their highly proficient
peers (Zhou & Rose, 2024). Despite evidence supporting the roles of metacogni-
tive awareness and strategies in enhancing learners’ listening proficiency, the
relationship between these factors remains inconclusive. This section draws
a picture on depicting the role of metacognitive awareness in listening.

5.1 Understanding Metacognition in Listening

Several theories have outlined methods for incorporating metacognitive
instruction into listening comprehension. For example, Vandergrift (2004)
proposed a metacognitive cycle designed to help learners systematically
apply metacognitive strategies while listening. This cycle consists of five
stages: planning/predicting, first verification, second verification, final verifi-
cation, and reflection.
Planning/Predicting: In this stage, students familiarise themselves with the
topic and text type. They also predict the kinds of information and words they
might hear. Metacognitive strategies employed here include planning and
directed attention.
First Verification: During this stage, students verify their initial hypotheses,
rectify any inaccuracies, and note additional information. The strategies used
include monitoring, planning, and selective attention.
Second Verification: In this stage, students address points of disagreement,
make necessary corrections, and grasp finer details. This stage often involves

class discussions and reﬂections to help students understand the meanings of

specific words or parts of the text. Relevant metacognitive strategies are moni-
toring, problem solving, and evaluation.
Final Verification: Here, students listen for information they could not
decipher during earlier stages or class discussions. The strategies applied
include selective attention and monitoring.
Reflection: In the final stage, learners adopt strategies to compensate for
misunderstandings and set goals for future listening activities. The primary
metacognitive strategy in this phase is evaluation.
By following this metacognitive cycle, learners can systematically develop
their listening comprehension skills through the structured application of and
reflection on various metacognitive strategies. Vandergrift’s metacognitive
cycle provides a framework that enhances listening skills and fosters a deeper
understanding of metacognitive processes in language learning. Taken together,
these five stages offer insights into how metacognition is conceptualised in
listening. By breaking down the listening process into stages, learners can better
see how to actively engage with and manage their cognitive processes. This
approach helps learners become more aware of their listening strategies and
how to regulate them. It also highlights the importance of continuous reflection
and adjustment, enabling learners to develop a more adaptable approach to
listening comprehension.
Goh (2008) identified two types of learning activities for listening based on
the key principles for successful metacognitive instruction that Veenman, Van
Hout-Wolters, and Afflerbach (2006) outlined. The first type, integrated experi-
ential listening tasks, enables learners to engage in the social-cognitive pro-
cesses of listening comprehension. Students primarily use course books or
teacher-prepared materials. The focus is on extracting information and con-
structing meaning. By merging listening activities with metacognitive prompts,
learners can become aware of the numerous cognitive processes that L2 listen-
ing entails. Students can then apply metacognitive knowledge to their listening
development outside the classroom, explore their self-concept as listeners, use
appropriate strategies while listening, and identify factors that may influence
their listening performance. The second type of activity is guided reflections for
listening. It aims to elicit learners’ implicit knowledge about L2 listening and
encourages them to build new knowledge to better understand their listening
experiences. Through reflections, learners can recall previous listening events
and plot out strategies to manage their learning. Such introspection helps
learners analyse their listening processes, recognise successful strategies, and
see areas for improvement. Both types of activities have notable implications
for conceiving metacognition in relation to listening. Structured tasks and

reﬂective practices can promote learners’ awareness and regulation of their

cognitive processes. By completing experiential tasks and guided reflections,
learners can more readily grasp metacognitive strategies and their utility to
become effective, autonomous listeners.
Research has consistently supported the adoption of metacognitive strategies
to enhance listening skills. For instance, Goh and Taib (2006) devised a series of
eight process-based listening lessons designed for primary school students.
These lessons follow a three-stage sequence: listen and answer, reflect, and
report and discuss. Goh and Taib’s (2006) research indicated that, after finishing
the eight lessons, learners exhibited significant improvements in their metacog-
nitive knowledge concerning listening. All students reported a richer under-
standing of the components needed to increase listening comprehension. They
also demonstrated greater confidence when performing listening tasks and used
more effective strategic knowledge to overcome challenges in listening com-
prehension. Weaker students actually received the most substantial benefits
from these process-based lessons, signifying the approach’s suitability for
diverse learning needs. In another study, Vandergrift (2005) focused on fifty-
seven French adolescent learners who took a metacognitive awareness listening
questionnaire, a motivation questionnaire, and a listening comprehension test.
The results revealed a strong correlation between intrinsic motivation and the
frequent use of metacognitive listening strategies. Findings further underscored
a progressively stronger relationship between students’ reported use of meta-
cognitive listening strategies and their levels of self-determined motivation for
listening. This pattern implies that intrinsic motivation is vital for applying
metacognitive strategies, as more intrinsically driven listeners tend to use these
strategies more often and successfully. These two studies jointly demonstrate
that metacognition in listening involves an awareness and regulation of one’s
listening processes as well as the strategic application of this awareness to
strengthen comprehension and overcome listening challenges. Intrinsic motiv-
ation is hence pivotal to the fruitful implementation of metacognitive strategies:
it prompts learners to engage more closely and consistently with these methods.
Vandergriff and Goh (2012) defined metacognition in listening as listeners’
awareness of their cognitive processes. The authors’ instructional framework
for teaching metacognitive skills in listening consists of three components:
knowing, sensing, and doing. These elements are operationalised as using
prior knowledge (schema), processing information during listening, and
employing self-regulating strategies both during and after listening. Peer inter-
action is crucial throughout the learning process. Vandergriff and Goh’s (2012)
proposed pedagogical sequence includes planning, goal setting, predicting,
monitoring, evaluating, reflecting, and problem solving. They argued that

classroom-based metacognitive instruction particularly beneﬁts low-proﬁciency

learners. Students at an early stage of language acquisition should gain the most
from a metacognitive approach to listening. Thus, metacognition in listening can
be understood as an awareness and regulation of one’s cognitive processes,
requiring the strategic use of prior knowledge, active processing during listening,
and continuous self-regulation to enhance comprehension and problem-solving
abilities.
Goh and Vandergrift (2021) later synthesised available research on listening,
referring to historical means of listening instruction and identifying these
methods’ drawbacks. The pitfalls include limited understanding of the listening
process itself and an overemphasis on comprehending input as the sole measure
of listening skills. The authors instead recommended a learner-centred approach
to listening that integrates metacognitive strategies. These techniques are
intended to help students understand how they learn, self-correct, and improve
their overall listening experience. Goh and Vandergrift’s (2021) definition of
teaching succinctly captures this approach: ‘Teaching is the process by which
novices learn a skill or acquire knowledge with the help of expert input, scaffold-
ing, and guidance’ (p. 189). Their description emphasises expert support and
structured guidance in helping learners develop effective listening skills.
Based on the summarised studies, learners’ metacognitive awareness of listen-
ing is integral to listening comprehension. Metacognitive instruction is believed
to give learners opportunities to develop their listening comprehension skills.
However, instruction on metacognitive listening strategies must be tailored to
students’ needs. A core aspect is fostering students’ awareness of self-evaluation:
being able to self-evaluate can enhance students’ self-efficacy, as their motivation
to engage in self-assessment and problem solving arises from instruction regard-
ing metacognitive listening strategies. Scholars have also provided evidence that
language educators can design appropriate, evidence-based curricula, particularly
for learners with varying levels of language proficiency. Contextual, learner-
related, and cultural factors may influence students’ knowledge and willingness
to adopt metacognitive strategies for achieving L2 listening comprehension.
Accordingly, Goh (2018) framed metacognition as involving mental activities
such as ‘directly attending to input, processing it in working memory, and storing
the processed knowledge and understanding in long-term memory for retrieval
and use’ (p. 1). Yet gaps exist between metacognitive instruction and the process-
ing that is mandatory for L2 listening; to bridge them, metacognitive instruction
should stress learners’ conscious awareness of their cognitive activities. Students’
retrieval of L2 knowledge will then be more accurate and faster, and they will
know how to expedite their learning during future tasks (Sato, 2022).

5.2 Critical Issues

5.2.1 The Extent of Metacognitive Facilitation for Listening

One critical issue lies in the extent of metacognitive facilitation for listening.
The aforementioned studies encapsulate the significant impact of metacognitive
instruction on listening. Importantly, though, listening comprehension tran-
scends auditory perception. It involves a sophisticated set of cognitive abilities
with which learners can discern critical information, unravel subtle meanings,
and infer context from a diverse array of spoken cues. Its importance is rooted
not just in language comprehension but in broader communicative competence
and intercultural insight. Thus, EFL students must adeptly engage with the
complexities of spoken English. This capacity manifests from several facets:
engaging assertively and dynamically in dialogues and discussions, internalis-
ing sophisticated vocabulary, grasping complicated syntactic constructions,
emulating authentic pronunciation patterns, and understanding the cultural
peculiarities of English-speaking communities.
Applying metacognitive strategies for EFL listening instruction signifies an
educational shift towards autonomous learning. These strategies involve
advanced cognitive skills encompassing self-awareness, regulatory control, and
deliberate orchestration of one’s learning activities, which jointly contribute to
listening performance (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). While this step is important,
the critical issue is not merely instruction-oriented; a key question is how to
integrate these strategies to suit specific listening requirements. Each metacogni-
tive strategy should be tailored to the needs of listening tasks. For instance, when
highlighting personal knowledge, people must be able to access their pre-existing
repository of information, experiences, and convictions through metacognitive
knowledge. Despite researchers advocating for metacognitive training, the litera-
ture has insufficiently considered how each strategy aligns with listening-related
tasks. It is crucial to teach students how to home in on the linguistic elements of
spoken English to capture crucial auditory information. Metacognitive strategies
thus need to be incorporated into particular listening activities to be effective.

• Accessing Prior Knowledge: Encourage students to draw on their knowledge

and experiences before listening to a new piece of audio.
• Monitoring Understanding: Teach students to continually check their com-
prehension during listening in order to identify and address gaps in
understanding.
• Evaluating Performance: Guide students in assessing their listening perform-
ance after completing a task (e.g., by reﬂecting on which strategies worked
and which could be improved).

• Planning and Setting Goals: Help students set speciﬁc listening goals and
plan how to achieve them (e.g., focusing on understanding the main ideas or
speciﬁc details).

However, metacognitive facilitation for listening can be inﬂuenced by several

factors, impacting how effectively individuals employ strategies to enhance their
listening skills. Learners’ prior knowledge and experience play a crucial role, as
those with more exposure to the language or specific content may apply meta-
cognitive strategies more effectively (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Motivation and
attitude are also significant; highly motivated learners are more likely to engage in
planning, monitoring, and evaluating their listening processes, leading to better
outcomes (Graham, 2006). The cognitive load of listening material can affect
facilitation, as overly complex content might overwhelm cognitive resources,
hindering strategy application (Sweller, 1988). Instructional support, particularly
explicit teaching and modelling of strategies, enhances learners’ self-regulation
abilities (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Environmental factors, such as noise and
distractions, can impede concentration and strategy use, making a conducive
listening environment essential (Rost, 2016). Finally, individual differences,
including age, cognitive abilities, and personality traits, can affect strategy use,
with those possessing higher working memory capacity potentially managing
strategies more effectively (Baddeley, 2003). Understanding these factors can aid
educators in designing effective listening instruction that supports metacognitive
strategy development, thereby improving listening comprehension and language
proficiency.

5.2.2 Metacognitive Strategies for Listening

Metacognitive strategies are of paramount importance in listening instruction.

New information is encountered in the classroom nearly every day. However,
students cannot always ﬁgure out how new material connects to what has
already been covered – or even whether something that they know is important
to think about. For many teachers, presenting a new lesson can just feel like
adding another disembodied idea or concept to the mix. Students then tend to
absorb knowledge passively by taking notes without thinking critically. Even
though each new lesson introduces fresh information, if that material seems
disjointed from prior learning, it can become overwhelming.
Metacognitive strategies matter for listening because it involves understand-
ing, on a larger scale, how ideas build upon each other. Teachers should realise
that an intentional continuum exists, which stretches through units and proﬁ-
ciency levels, linking to existing background knowledge. This approach helps
build deeper, more durable knowledge and encourages students to take ownership

of their own learning, especially in listening. Many teachers’ instructional prac-

tices lack metacognitive awareness. Even teachers who possess some degree of
metacognitive awareness often separate metacognitive training from listening
instruction. They may focus on instilling in students the metacognitive habits to
actively reflect on one’s learning process with the aim of developing self-
sufficient learners. However, it is equally important to train students to grapple
with new material through a reflection on metacognitive strategies. Then they can
see how newly introduced information fits into the puzzle of what they already
know, solidifies concepts, or reveals gaps in their knowledge.
To help students build the metacognitive habits necessary to evaluate new
materials and make sense of them, the following metacognitive strategies may help.

• Connecting New Material to Prior Knowledge: Explicitly show students how

new information connects to what they have previously learnt. This practice
will help students see the bigger picture and understand the relevance of new
content.
• Encourage Active Reflection: Prompt students to reflect on their learning
process, such as by asking them to consider how new information fits
with their existing knowledge and what strategies they have applied to
understand it.
• Facilitate Critical Thinking: Encourage students to analyse new material,
helping them to identify key information and its significance for listening
comprehension.
• Model Metacognitive Strategies: Demonstrate how to use metacognitive
strategies in listening tasks, such as when predicting content, monitoring
comprehension, and evaluating understanding.
• Provide Scaffolding: Offer support while students practice metacognitive
strategies, gradually reducing assistance as they become more proficient.

However, implementing metacognitive strategies in writing presents several

critical challenges. A primary issue is the lack of awareness and training among
educators and students, which can lead to a superficial application of these
strategies without a deep understanding of their purpose. Integrating metacog-
nitive strategies into an already packed curriculum is another hurdle, often
resulting in these strategies being sidelined. Student engagement is crucial but
can be difficult to achieve, as some students may resist introspection or fail to
see the immediate benefits. Additionally, traditional assessment methods may
not effectively capture improvements in metacognitive skills, complicating the
feedback process. The diverse needs of learners further complicate implemen-
tation, as a one-size-fits-all approach is rarely effective. Time constraints in
educational settings also pose a barrier, as developing metacognitive skills

requires practice, reﬂection, and feedback. Finally, resource limitations, such as

insufﬁcient training materials and professional development opportunities, can
lead to inconsistent application across classrooms.

5.3 Summary
Listening comprehension transcends the simplistic notion of auditory reception,
representing a dynamic process of meaning construction that is pivotal in
language learning. It holds particular signiﬁcance for EFL learners, who fre-
quently face unique challenges when cultivating this skill. Despite its recog-
nised importance, the awareness and application of metacognitive listening
comprehension strategies are sorely lacking in listening instruction.
Metacognitive strategies encompass deliberate cognitive processes (e.g., moni-
toring and regulating one’s cognitive activities) to enhance listening comprehension.
However, teacher metacognition plays a crucial role in realising the full extent of
metacognitive facilitation for listening: teachers must ﬁrst develop their own meta-
cognitive awareness to effectively guide students in employing these strategies.

6 Metacognition in Vocabulary Learning

Studies on vocabulary learning strategies have proceeded for almost thirty
years. Numerous theoretical and empirical studies have been conducted, estab-
lishing vocabulary learning strategy research firmly within the field of applied
linguistics following early work by Gu and Johnson (1996). Despite these
advancements, Gu (2018) noted that academic interest in vocabulary learning
strategies still requires development. This somewhat ambivalent status stems in
part from a series of critiques regarding the definitional fuzziness and lack of
rigor when measuring vocabulary learning strategies from the self-regulation
perspective (Tseng et al., 2006).
These criticisms have spurred theoretical progress, leading vocabulary learn-
ing to be redefined through the lens of metacognition (F. Teng & Mizumoto,
2024). One significant attempt to address these issues is the incorporation of
metacognitive strategies into vocabulary learning, a concept rooted in educa-
tional psychology (Schraw, 1998). Progress has highlighted the pertinence of
a metacognitive perspective in vocabulary learning strategy research, offering
a more comprehensive framework to help learners acquire vocabulary.

6.1 Understanding Metacognition in Vocabulary Learning

A wide range of knowledge aspects accompany knowing a word, with each aspect
involving varying degrees of strength, detail, and ﬂuency. In a vocabulary instruc-
tion course, the curriculum’s focus and balance are essential to ensuring the

development of well-rounded, usable vocabulary knowledge. According to Nation

(2020), the two major conditions for effective vocabulary instruction are the
number of encounters with words and the quality of attention given to those
words. Vocabulary learning basically hinges on how often words are encountered
and the depth of mental processing during each encounter.
Noticing is the most superficial level of attention but remains useful. The next
level, retrieval, builds on prior noticing. Receptive retrieval occurs when
a learner sees or hears a word and must recall its meaning, often facilitated by
extensive reading. Productive retrieval happens when a learner wants to express
a meaning and must call to mind the appropriate spoken or written word form.
Both receptive and productive retrieval are more influential for learning when
they build on previous instances of retrieval or noticing. However, learners’
metacognitive awareness is crucial for effectively noticing and understanding
the different dimensions of vocabulary knowledge. Metacognitive strategies
enable learners to plan, monitor, and evaluate their vocabulary learning pro-
cesses, thereby enhancing their ability to notice and retrieve words. This
heightened awareness helps learners develop a more nuanced approach to
vocabulary learning, such that they not only recognise and recall words but
also understand and use them proficiently.
Before addressing metacognition in vocabulary learning, it is necessary to
clarify the concept of SRL and its presence in vocabulary strategy research.
The integration of SRL concepts into this line of research can be traced back to
Tseng et al. (2006). They devised a tool to measure self-regulatory capacity in
vocabulary learning, marking the beginning of a more structured approach to
determining how learners manage vocabulary acquisition. The literature has since
explored the intricacies of self-regulatory and self-regulated aspects of vocabu-
lary learning. For instance, Mizumoto (2013) investigated how self-regulation
shapes vocabulary learning strategies and outcomes, providing insights into the
mechanisms through which people control and direct their learning activities.
F. Teng et al. (2024) further examined these concepts, highlighting self-regulation
as vital for a growth mindset and effective vocabulary acquisition. As learners
better grasp their metacognitive processes, they become more adroit at employing
strategies that boost their growth mindset. Significantly enhanced vocabulary
learning can then follow (F. Teng, 2024b). Researchers have also considered the
criterion-related validity of self-regulated vocabulary learning through composite
models (Alamer, Teng, & Mizumoto, 2024); constructs of self-regulated vocabu-
lary learning appear positively and moderately associated with L2 vocabulary
achievement. This relationship underscores the role of self-regulation in enhan-
cing vocabulary learning outcomes: it suggests that individuals who regulate their
learning processes well tend to achieve higher levels of vocabulary proficiency.

Incorporating SRL into vocabulary learning strategy research has generated

several developments.

1) Measurement Tools: The creation of tools to assess self-regulatory capacity

has enabled researchers to quantify learners’ abilities to manage their
vocabulary learning.
2) Effects on Learning Strategies: Understanding how self-regulation inﬂu-
ences learning strategies has offered valuable insights into the ways learners
can optimise their vocabulary learning.
3) Validity and Achievement: The positive correlations between SRL con-
structs and vocabulary achievement highlight the practical beneﬁts of fos-
tering language learners’ self-regulation.

As research on vocabulary learning strategies increasingly focuses on self-

regulatory capacity, a crucial element remains underexplored – metacognition,
also known as metacognitive awareness. Self-regulatory capacity and metacog-
nitive awareness are interrelated (Wen et al., 2023). Self-regulatory capacity
involves one’s ability to manage their thoughts, emotions, and actions using
various cognitive and metacognitive strategies, along with motivation, to
achieve goals. By contrast, metacognitive awareness refers to one’s awareness
of their cognitive processes, including knowledge of personal learning strat-
egies and how best to apply them. Growing attention is being paid to the role of
metacognition in vocabulary learning, which can be conceptualised as learners’
awareness and regulation of their cognitive processes (e.g., planning, monitor-
ing, and evaluating their learning activities) to enhance vocabulary acquisition.
This heightened interest in metacognitive strategies is intended to help students
become more effective and autonomous in their vocabulary learning
endeavours.
The goal of documenting the practices of ‘good’ language learners is to
identify strategies that less successful learners can adopt. Rodgers (2018)
argued that (a) effective strategy use is generally associated with more success-
ful vocabulary learning, (b) ‘good’ learners are proactive in their vocabulary
learning, and (c) these learners are flexible in their strategy use for acquiring
new words. Such assumptions have been confirmed empirically. F. Teng and
Zhang (2024) randomly assigned 120 Chinese university EFL students to 1 of 4
task conditions: 1) reading, 2) reading + gap-fill, 3) reading + writing, and 4)
reading + writing with the use of a digital dictionary. The Metacognitive
Awareness Inventory was administered to assess participants’ metacognitive
knowledge and regulation. The standardised parameter estimates for metacog-
nitive regulation were significant at the .001 level for both receptive and
productive knowledge. Unexpectedly, however, the standardised parameter

estimates for metacognitive knowledge were not significant for either receptive
or productive knowledge. In line with F. Teng (2023b), awareness of metacog-
nitive regulation may lead to greater engagement with and use of vocabulary
learning strategies, thereby fostering better mastery of both receptive and
productive vocabulary knowledge.
Several studies have addressed the longitudinal impact of metacognitive
knowledge on vocabulary learning. For example, F. Teng (2022c) explored
how enhanced acquisition of metacognitive knowledge could serve as
a foundation for understanding and using metacognitive strategies to identify,
evaluate, and improve vocabulary learning among primary school learners. The
study showed that participants’ levels of metacognitive knowledge were
strongly associated with their vocabulary knowledge over the school year.
The more learners understood their mental and cognitive processes, the better
their vocabulary acquisition. Two other studies focused on metacognition and
vocabulary learning for minority multilingual learners (F. Teng & Zhang, 2022,
2024a). These articles revealed that learners’ cognitive achievements (e.g., the
ability to explain strategy use based on learning experiences) predicted their
vocabulary learning, including morphological awareness. Furthermore, growth
in learners’ metacognitive knowledge was linked to improvements in vocabu-
lary learning from a longitudinal perspective.
Several authors have considered the topic of training metacognitive strategies
for vocabulary learning. For example, Rasekh and Ranjbary (2003) investigated
the effects of explicit instruction on metacognitive strategies using a teaching
model with five steps: preparation, presentation, practice, evaluation, and
expansion. Findings indicated that the explicit instruction and practice received
by the experimental group significantly contributed to these participants’
improved lexical knowledge. The training involved teaching participants how
to plan their vocabulary learning, set goals within a specific timeframe, select
the most appropriate vocabulary learning strategies, monitor strategy use,
combine multiple strategies, self-test their mastery of new vocabulary items
after initial exposure, manage their study time to include vocabulary practice,
and evaluate the entire learning process. Similarly, F. Teng and Reynolds (2019)
applied individual and group metacognitive prompts to facilitate incidental
vocabulary learning from reading. The prompts included self-addressed ques-
tions addressing two components: knowledge of metacognition and regulation
of metacognition. Collaborative learning with prompts was identified as the
most effective condition for vocabulary learning. The metacognitive prompts in
a group setting helped participants become familiar with necessary actions such
as searching for various information, monitoring and evaluating this process,
conducting argumentation, reasoning, and problem solving. This approach

enabled students to engage in peer interaction, which motivated them to reason

with one another to understand the text while simultaneously grasping the
meanings of difficult words.
Given the insights from numerous studies, metacognition in vocabulary
learning can be defined as one’s awareness and regulation of their cognitive
processes to enhance vocabulary learning. This concept involves understanding
how to effectively plan, monitor, and evaluate one’s learning activities.
Metacognitive awareness lets learners notice and retrieve words more effi-
ciently, facilitating deeper mental processing and better retention. By cultivat-
ing metacognitive awareness, learners can set specific goals, choose suitable
strategies, and assess their progress – all of which promote more autonomous
and effective vocabulary learning. This description highlights the importance of
bringing metacognitive training into vocabulary instruction. Doing so can
prepare individuals to be more self-regulated and successful in their vocabulary
learning efforts.

6.2 Critical Issues

6.2.1 Lack of Attention to Metacognitive Strategies for Vocabulary Learning
As is apparent, people can employ a variety of strategies to learn L2 vocabulary.
Several scholars have developed taxonomies of available techniques, with
O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) and Oxford’s (1990) frameworks being the most
highly cited. These taxonomies differentiate between cognitive and metacognitive
strategies. Cognitive strategies relate to how learners process the target lexical
items. From a practical standpoint, cognitive strategies can be seen as ‘hands-on’
methods, such as using flashcards as a study tool. Metacognitive strategies, on the
other hand, are higher-order approaches concerned with the regulation of learning.
These strategies are normally associated with reflective practice and can be sub-
categorised into planning, monitoring, and evaluating learning.
One critical issue in vocabulary instruction is the frequent use of cognitive
strategies – often to the neglect of metacognitive options. Many students lack
metacognitive strategies to seek out opportunities for practice and to plan their
learning, such as deciding when and how frequently to review items in their
vocabulary notebooks. That is not to say that metacognitive strategies are inher-
ently more effective than cognitive ones. However, the awareness and application
of metacognitive strategies are noticeably absent from vocabulary learning com-
pared with other language-learning domains (e.g., reading and writing). Teachers,
especially in EFL settings, tend to rely heavily on grammar translation and exam-
oriented methods. Even when cognitive techniques like flashcards are used,
students often remain passive in their learning rather than taking active roles.

Students may be active in rote-memorising a large number of words, but this

method should not be suggested as a primary means of vocabulary learning.
Vocabulary instruction should be part of a well-balanced language course
composed of four equal strands: meaning-focused input, meaning-focused
output, language-focused learning, and ﬂuency development (Nation, 2007).
Teachers and learners both need to build metacognitive awareness in order to
strike this balance. Being able to integrate and use cognitive and metacognitive
strategies will allow for a more comprehensive, autonomous approach to
vocabulary learning.

6.2.2 Use Reﬂective Questions to Foster Metacognitive Awareness

for Vocabulary Learning
Another critical issue in vocabulary learning is the use of reflective questions to
foster metacognitive awareness. Promoting metacognition among students is pri-
marily achieved through posing reflective questions (Teng & Reynolds, 2019).
Although teachers mostly employ these as a rounding-off activity, the questions
can also be used to encourage metacognitive awareness at all three stages of
learning: planning, monitoring, and evaluating. For that reason, reflective questions
can serve a variety of purposes in the classroom, enhancing the overall learning
experience. These types of questions encourage reflection about the learning of
vocabulary items so students start to think deeply about this process.
However, it is often unclear which methods learners apply to reach goals.
Reflective questions can be easily incorporated into classroom activities – even
in core course components. For instance, these questions could be featured as
prompts in a reflective journal or as short-answer questions on tests or assign-
ments. Additionally, when demonstrating metacognitive strategies, teachers
could respond to these questions as part of a think-aloud task to model meta-
cognitive practices for students. Unfortunately, many teachers are unaware of
how to apply reflective questions at each point of the learning process. Such
questions tend to appear intermittently (i.e., within individual lessons) instead
of as part of an all-encompassing evaluation strategy. This somewhat frag-
mented implementation means that students seldom develop a complete under-
standing of how to plan, monitor, and assess their vocabulary learning through
reflective questions.
To address this issue, teachers need to consistently infuse reflective questions
into the learning process, such as by making them a regular part of vocabulary
instruction. This integration will help students engage more thoroughly with
learning strategies, leading to greater metacognitive awareness and more effect-
ive vocabulary acquisition. By encouraging regular reflection, students can

become more autonomous learners; they will therefore be better prepared to

manage their vocabulary learning in a structured, self-regulated manner.

6.3 Summary
This section synthesises ideas from studies related to metacognition in vocabu-
lary learning. The concept refers to learners’ awareness and regulation of their
cognitive processes to enhance vocabulary acquisition. Metacognitive strat-
egies equip learners with skills to notice and retrieve words more efficiently,
facilitating deeper mental processing and better retention. Learners who have
honed their metacognitive awareness can set specific goals, choose appropriate
strategies, and monitor their progress to acquire vocabulary more independently
and fluidly.
This section also underscores the need for metacognitive training in vocabu-
lary learning. It highlights how reflective questions can be used to promote
metacognitive awareness at all stages of learning. These questions can be
incorporated into various classroom activities (e.g., reflective journals, short-
answer questions on tests, and think-aloud tasks). However, the section also
points out that many teachers lack awareness of how to incorporate these
questions throughout the learning process rather than only in standalone les-
sons. This disjointed application hinders students from fully developing the
skills to plan, monitor, and evaluate their vocabulary learning through reflec-
tion. Students can become more autonomous vocabulary learners by making
reflection a habit.

7 Assessing Metacognition
Researchers have employed various methods to measure learners’ metacogni-
tive awareness, including self-report questionnaires, observations, think-aloud
protocols, and interviews (Winne & Perry, 2005). For instance, metacognition
can be examined through stimulated recalls and by retrospectively asking
learners about their thoughts during task performance (Bui & Kong, 2019). In
a review of 123 studies on metacognition assessment, Dinsmore, Alexander,
and Loughlin (2008) identiﬁed self-report questionnaires as particularly popular
due to their cost-effectiveness, suitability for large-scale studies, and ease of
administration and scoring. Despite concerns about the reliability of self-report
data, these tools have received signiﬁcant academic attention. Given the
variety and popularity of these assessment methods, there is a clear need for
a dedicated section on assessing metacognition. Such a section would
provide a comprehensive overview of the different assessment tools, elucidate
their applications, and evaluate their effectiveness in understanding learners’

metacognitive processes, thereby guiding educators and researchers in selecting

appropriate methods for their speciﬁc contexts.

7.1 Understanding Assessment Tools for Metacognition

The following sub-sections introduce select tools for testing metacognition in
different domains.

7.1.1 Metacognition Scale in Educational Psychology

Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI)

The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI), which Schraw and Dennison
(1994) developed, is a popular scale for measuring metacognitive awareness in
adolescents and adults. This survey consists of fifty-two items divided into eight
factors that constitute two dimensions: knowledge of cognition (seventeen items)
and regulation of cognition (thirty-five items). The knowledge dimension covers
declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge; the regulation dimension
includes planning, information management strategies, monitoring, debugging
strategies, and evaluation. The MAI is a reliable tool for initially assessing
metacognitive awareness. It is also effective for evaluating lower-performing
students who often exhibit deficiencies in comprehension monitoring.

7.1.2 Language-Learning Strategies

The Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL)
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), created by Oxford (1990),
is a ﬁfty-item instrument designed to test language learners’ use of various
strategies (i.e., in the memory, cognitive, metacognitive, compensation, affective,
and social domains). SILL arose from the observation that successful language
learners tend to deploy useful strategies more frequently than less successful
learners and that awareness of these strategies can help predict language-learning
performance. Teachers using SILL can gain a comprehensive strategy proﬁle of
their students and determine the types of strategies learners adopt when studying
English as a second or foreign language.

7.1.3 Metacognition Scale for Listening

Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ)

Vandergrift et al. (2006) constructed the Metacognitive Awareness Listening
Questionnaire (MALQ) to assess L2 listeners’ metacognitive awareness and
perceived use of strategies while listening to oral texts. The MALQ contains

twenty-one items across ﬁve factors: problem solving, planning and evaluation,
mental translation, person knowledge, and directed attention. It was established
based on Flavell’s (1979) model of metacognitive knowledge (i.e., person, task,
and strategy knowledge). Students can use the MALQ to identify their current
level of metacognitive awareness and to chart their strategy use and listening
comprehension awareness over time. The MALQ may also be used for meta-
cognitive training to help learners become skilled listeners who self-regulate
their metacognitive comprehension automatically. In addition, teachers can use
the MALQ as a diagnostic or consciousness-raising tool to understand students’
metacognitive awareness in listening comprehension.

Mobile-Assisted Self-Regulated Listening Strategy Questionnaire

(MSRLS-Q)
Zhou et al. (2024) developed the Mobile-Assisted Self-Regulated Listening
Strategy Questionnaire (MSRLS-Q) to account for mobile technologies’ trans-
formative effects on L2 listening. The tool is based on a 31-item, five-factor
model of students’ pre-, during-, and post-listening strategies: goal setting and
mobile resource planning, cognitive and metacognitive multimedia listening,
mobile-assisted motivational control, structuring online social space, and lis-
tening evaluation and adaptation. These areas align with Zimmerman’s (2001)
framework, which describes SRL as a holistic, cyclical process comprising
forethought, performance, and self-reflection. This self-regulated listening pro-
cess includes task-specific strategies during listening, setting listening goals,
planning and seeking resources, and evaluating and adapting listening prac-
tices – all key components of SRL.

7.1.4 Metacognition scale for reading

Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI)

Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) created the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading
Strategies Inventory (MARSI) to assess 6th- through 12th-grade students’ meta-
cognitive awareness and perceived use of reading strategies while reading
academic or school-related materials. MARSI includes three factors. The ﬁrst,
Global Reading Strategies, contains 13 items focused on reading strategies to
globally analyse the text. The second factor is Problem-Solving Strategies,
composed of eight items related to strategies for solving problems when text
becomes difﬁcult to read. The third factor is Support Reading Strategies; it
contains nine items measuring the use of outside reference materials, note
taking, and other support strategies. MARSI provides feedback for assessing
the degree to which a student is or is not aware of the cognitive processes for

reading. The results can provide information for learners to increase their
awareness of their own comprehension processes and help teachers to under-
stand students’ strategy use in reading.

7.1.5 Metacognition scale for writing

Writing Strategies for Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire
(WSSRLQ)
The Writing Strategies for Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire (WSSRLQ),
which L. Teng and Zhang (2016) developed, is one of the most-cited scales in
writing. It includes forty items and nine factors: goal-oriented monitoring and
evaluating, idea planning, peer learning, feedback handling, interest enhance-
ment, emotional control, motivational self-talk, text processing, and course
memory. The WSSRLQ can be used as a self-evaluation tool for students to
appraise their degree of awareness of writing strategies to reﬂect on their writing
strategy use when developing writing skills in EFL contexts. The instrument
provides insights into self-regulated writing strategies from cognitive, metacog-
nitive, social-behavioural, and motivational regulation perspectives.

Metacognitive Academic Writing Strategies

Questionnaire (MAWSQ)
F. Teng et al. (2022) constructed the MAWSQ through a five-step procedure:
item generation, reference consultation, initial piloting, psychometric evalu-
ation, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The MAWSQ has two main
components, metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. The
authors established three categories of metacognitive knowledge (i.e., declara-
tive knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge). Five cat-
egories (i.e., planning, monitoring, evaluating, debugging, and information
management) were specified for metacognitive regulation. Confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) revealed an eight-factor correlated model of metacognitive
strategies for EFL academic writing with standardised regression weights as
well as a one-factor second-order model of metacognitive strategies for EFL
academic writing. The findings also supported the roles of different MAWSQ
subcategories in predicting EFL learners’ academic writing performance.

Self-Regulatory Writing Strategy Questionnaire (SRWSQ)

for Young Learners
F. Teng et al. (2022) assessed the Self-Regulatory Writing Strategy
Questionnaire (SRWSQ) for young EFL learners. The study featured
a factorial design; EFA and CFA were performed to validate the inferences

and uses of the questionnaire. The CFA results conﬁrmed six factors for the
thirty-item instrument: writing planning, goal-oriented monitoring, goal-
oriented evaluation, emotional control, memorisation strategies, and metacog-
nitive judgement.

Metacognition-Based Student Feedback Literacy (MSFL)

F. Teng and Ma’s (2024) study may be the first to evaluate metacognition-
based feedback literacy. The findings validated their tool’s factorial
structure, with knowing, being, and doing representing three components
of metacognition-based student feedback literacy. These three factors shed
new light on our understanding of metacognitive awareness and skills in
student feedback literacy. For the knowing dimension, feedback literate
writers need to possess knowledge of writing tasks, knowledge of aca-
demic writing, knowledge of learning through assessment, and strategy
knowledge. For the being dimension, findings supported the roles of self-
perceived motivation and confidence in adjusting one’s emotions in
response to feedback. For the doing dimension, the results showed that
student writers need to deploy both feedback-related writing strategies (i.e.,
feedback-related planning, monitoring, and evaluation strategies) and feed-
back-related strategies in participation (i.e., various strategies employed
when seeking, generating, processing, or using feedback).

Metacognitive Writing Strategies for Self-Regulated Learning

(MWSSRL) in Multimedia Writing Contexts
F. Teng and Qin (2024) validated the Metacognitive Writing Strategies for
Self-Regulated Learning (MWSSRL) instrument, which comprises fifty-
two items. A CFA substantiated the instrument’s factorial structure, includ-
ing emotional control, motivation and interests, debugging strategies,
declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, information management
strategies, corrective feedback, planning, monitoring, and evaluating. The
MWSSRL demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties for assessing
metacognitive writing strategies in SRL. Findings confirmed this tool’s
validity for measuring the multifaceted structure of metacognitive writing
strategies that learners use in an EFL multimedia writing context. The
proposed eleven metacognitive writing strategies were significantly correl-
ated yet conceptually and empirically distinct. All metacognitive writing
strategies were validated via CFA and conceptually interpreted with refer-
ence to the four core components of SRL: motivational regulation, meta-
cognitive knowledge, social behaviour, and metacognitive regulation.

Self-Regulation Scale for Multimedia Writing (SRSMW)

F. Teng and Zhang (2024) validated the Self-Regulated Scale for Multimedia
Writing (SRSMW) through a three-step process of consulting relevant theories
and literature, cross-checking with interviews, and performing EFA. Their
analysis uncovered five key factors (goal setting, strategic planning, elabor-
ation, self-evaluation, and help-seeking) clustered under the umbrella of self-
regulation. The first factor, goal setting, comprises five writing strategies that
span different phases of self-regulation: forethought (setting a goal for multi-
media writing [Item 2]); performance control (employing goal-directed actions
[Items 4 and 5] and monitoring performance [Item 1]); and self-reflection on
using various multimedia tools (Item 3). The second factor, strategic planning,
consists of five validated strategies: course preparation (Item 6), evaluation of
multimedia platforms (Item 7), planning and evaluating strategies (Item 8), time
management (Item 9), and online resource planning (Item 10). The third factor,
elaboration, focuses on connecting new information to prior knowledge (Items
13 and 14), using online information (Items 11 and 12), and providing detailed
explanations of social phenomena (Item 15). The fourth factor, self-evaluation,
involves learners’ self-assessment of language use (Item 19), course evaluation
(Items 18 and 20), content evaluation (Item 16), and multimedia tool evaluation
(Item 17). The fifth factor is help-seeking; it describes strategies that require
learners to collaborate with others to enhance writing performance, primarily
focusing on seeking assistance from teachers and peers (Items 21–25).

7.1.6 Metacognition Scale for Vocabulary Learning

Self-Regulating Capacity in Vocabulary Learning Scale (SRCvoc)

Tseng et al. (2006) reported that the overall (i.e., composite) reliability of the
Self-Regulating Capacity in Vocabulary Learning (SRCvoc) scale was impres-
sively high at 0.92. They demonstrated that the latent construct of SRCvoc can
be effectively represented and measured through five indicators: commitment
control, metacognitive control, satiation control, emotion control, and environ-
mental control. Consequently, they argued that the SRCvoc is a meaningful and
valid measure, providing a foundation for exploring the theoretical nature of
self-regulation. Their findings highlight the definitional ambiguity surrounding
language-learning strategies and the inadequacy of existing psychometric
instruments designed to measure strategic learning capacity. To address these
issues, the researchers operationalised strategic learning and introduced the
SRCvoc to measure language learners’ self-regulation in a context-specific
manner. Further discussions on the SRCvoc can be found in studies published
in the same journal, Applied Linguistics, by Alamer et al. (2024) and Mizumoto

and Takeuchi (2012); their articles delve into this scale’s application and
implications in the ﬁeld of vocabulary learning.

Metacognitive Knowledge of Vocabulary

Learning Questionnaire (MKVLQ)
F. Teng and Mizumoto (2024) developed and validated a scale for assessing
metacognitive knowledge in vocabulary learning. The scale is structured around
three sub-dimensions – person, task, and strategies – identified through EFA and
CFA. These factors align with Flavell’s (1979) framework of metacognitive
knowledge. The sub-dimension of metacognitive knowledge of the self (person)
includes six items, focusing on understanding new words essential for text
comprehension, memorising the spelling and meanings of new words, seeking
reading material that suits personal interests, understanding logical develop-
ment, looking for explanations in the text or a dictionary, and maintaining
engagement in reading despite encountering unknown words. The sub-
dimension of metacognitive knowledge of the task also contains six items:
topics included the use of contextual encoding; finding interest in learning
word structures (e.g., prefixes, suffixes); making up sentences using new
words; applying newly learnt words in real-life situations; using newly learnt
words in imaginary scenarios; and taking notes while reading. The sub-
dimension of metacognitive knowledge of the strategies comprises four items,
centred on understanding the meaning as intended by the author, planning what
needs to be done and in what sequence, monitoring comprehension, and reflect-
ing on how the word relates to broader concepts. This scale is a robust tool for
evaluating metacognitive knowledge in vocabulary learning and offers valuable
insights into learners’ cognitive processes and strategies.

7.1.7 Metacognitive Knowledge (MCK) Test for Young Learners’ Foreign

Language Learning
F. Teng and Zhang (2024) validated a metacognitive knowledge (MCK) test for
young learners’ foreign language learning. This test comprises thirty tasks, each
designed with three distinct scenarios, resulting in a holistic assessment that
covers a range of metacognitive strategies relevant to foreign language learning.
To help young learners better understand the tasks and verbalise their metacog-
nitive strategies, three black-and-white drawings are presented to illustrate the
situations. EFA was employed to distil the essence of metacognitive knowledge,
suggesting that memory, learning, and comprehension strategies are intercon-
nected through higher-order metacognitive understanding. CFA provided stat-
istical conﬁrmation of the model’s ﬁt, indicating that a single overarching factor

of metacognitive knowledge accounts for the correlations observed among

memory (8 items), learning (4 items), and comprehension strategies (12 items).

7.2 Critical Issues

7.2.1 Doubts about Overrelying on Learners’ Self-Report Data

Assessing metacognitive awareness presents signiﬁcant challenges, particularly

in the realm of testing. One critical issue is an overreliance on learners’ self-
report data. Self-report questionnaires, while convenient and easy to administer,
often fail to capture the extent of learners’ internal cognitive and emotional
processes. Learners may struggle to articulate their thoughts and feelings,
leading to incomplete or biased responses. Additionally, learners’ language
proficiency can influence their answers, potentially skewing results and not
reflecting respondents’ genuine metacognitive awareness.
Despite these limitations, self-report questionnaires remain popular due to
their practicality. Alternative methods, such as think-aloud protocols (i.e.,
where learners verbalise their thought processes while engaging in a task),
can provide more detailed data. However, these procedures are usually chal-
lenging to administer; they require considerable time and resources.
Researchers instead tend to favour more straightforward approaches such as
surveys, using conventional statistical techniques like EFA and CFA for
validation purposes.
Several strategies can be employed to enhance the validity of surveys assess-
ing metacognitive awareness. First, mixed-method approaches can provide
a more comprehensive understanding. For example, combining self-report
questionnaires with qualitative methods such as interviews or think-aloud
protocols can help triangulate data and offer deeper insights into learners’
metacognitive processes. Second, ensuring questionnaire items’ clarity and
relevance is crucial. Items should be designed to be understood by learners of
varying proficiency levels and should target specific aspects of metacognitive
awareness. Piloting a questionnaire with a small group of learners and refining
items based on respondents’ feedback can help improve the instrument’s reli-
ability and validity. Third, adopting technology to facilitate data collection can
also enhance validity. For instance, using digital tools that allow learners to
record their thoughts in real time during language tasks can provide more
precise, immediate reflections of metacognitive strategies. Finally, ongoing
training for researchers and educators in administering and interpreting these
assessments is essential. Ensuring that those involved in the research process
are well-versed in the nuances of metacognitive assessment can mitigate biases
and improve overall data quality.

7.2.2 Lack of Attention to Assessing Young Learners’ Metacognitive

Awareness
Another critical issue in the assessment of metacognitive awareness is the
disproportionate focus on university students or adults to the relative neglect
of young learners. While evaluating young learners’ metacognitive awareness
presents unique challenges, it is nonetheless important – and, in fact, urgently
necessary. A key reason for this imbalance is the difficulty in creating and
administering assessments suitable for young learners. Children may have
limited abilities to reflect on and describe their cognitive processes, reducing
the effectiveness of traditional self-report questionnaires. However, this issue
should not deter researchers from pursuing this line of enquiry. It in fact
highlights the need to devise age-appropriate methods for evaluating young
learners’ metacognitive awareness.
Longitudinal studies by F. Teng and Zhang (2021, 2022, 2024a) have dem-
onstrated that young learners’ initial levels of metacognitive knowledge are
significantly related to later development in this area. These findings suggest
that early metacognitive awareness can have lasting impacts on learners’
cognitive and academic growth. Therefore, researchers must pay more attention
to early stages of metacognitive development.

7.3 Summary
This section synthesises key assessment tools for understanding learners’ meta-
cognitive awareness across various domains, including listening, reading,
writing, and vocabulary learning. By addressing associated obstacles and
employing a combination of strategies, researchers can enhance assessment
tools’ accuracy and reliability. Data will then offer a ﬁrmer sense of respond-
ents’ cognitive processes and improve language-learning outcomes.
The section also discusses the need to measure young learners’ metacognitive
awareness. By expanding the focus to include this demographic, researchers can
gain valuable information about the developmental trajectory of metacognitive
awareness. Such insights can inform educational practices and policies aimed at
nurturing metacognitive skills from an early age, thereby supporting lifelong
learning and cognitive development.

8 Conclusion on Metacognition in Language Teaching

Metacognitive instruction can be highly effective for enhancing listening,
reading, writing, and vocabulary learning. Teaching metacognitive skills
provides instructors with strategies to reshape their classroom environment,

enhance students’ capabilities in learning and using strategies, and improve

students’ cognitive abilities and motivation for language learning.
Certain principles are crucial when considering pedagogy for metacognitive
instruction: activating learners’ prior knowledge; encouraging reﬂections on
what they know and what they want to learn; and fostering active engagement in
setting goals, monitoring, and evaluating one’s learning process and outcomes.
Anderson’s (2002) ﬁve components for understanding students’ roles in meta-
cognitive instruction are particularly useful.

1) Preparing and Planning for Learning: Helping students set clear, achievable
goals.
2) Building Conscious Decisions in Selecting and Using Learning Strategies:
Encouraging students to make informed choices about their learning
strategies.
3) Monitoring and Keeping Track of Strategy Use: Teaching students to
continually assess their strategies’ effectiveness.
4) Orchestrating and Coordinating Various Strategies for Learning: Guiding
students in combining strategies effectively.
5) Building Awareness of Strategy Use: Enhancing students’ awareness of how
and why they use certain strategies.

Teachers should focus on different components of metacognitive knowledge

(person, task, and strategy) and target aspects of writing that enhance learners’
metacognition.
In reflection on teachers’ roles in metacognitive instruction, effective meta-
cognitive instruction also requires teachers to be aware of their roles, including
reflecting on their own pedagogy, knowledge, and practices. Teachers are key
players in explaining and modelling learner strategies, often in unpredictable
settings. Working with students who have diverse abilities and levels of motiv-
ation calls for a reflective approach to evaluating individual differences in the
learning process. If metacognitive instruction focuses on students’ awareness in
planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating their learning, then
teachers must also develop awareness to plan, implement, monitor, and evaluate
their teaching (Svalberg, 2007). Hiver and Whitehead (2018) offered several
suggestions regarding teachers’ roles in metacognitive instruction.

1) Being Proﬁcient in Their Own Language(s): Teachers should serve as

language models for their students.
2) Building Metalinguistic Knowledge: Teachers should understand their lin-
guistic choices and these choices’ impacts on students.

3) Promoting Intercultural Competence: Teachers should encourage students

to monitor and adjust their thinking and interactions with others.
4) Understanding Language-Learning Processes: Teachers should help stu-
dents take control of their learning by assigning them active roles.

Despite the beneﬁts of metacognitive instruction, teachers face challenges in

implementing it. They may lack the knowledge or training to enhance learners’
metacognitive awareness or doubt the effectiveness of curriculum changes.
Without sufficient autonomy to develop materials for metacognitive instruction,
teachers might even be reluctant to adopt this approach. Productive mentorship
can support teachers in infusing greater metacognitive thought and action into
their practice. These types of partnerships can build a network for critical
reflection and adaptability.
Teachers should also consider learners’ emotions and cognition in complex
learning environments. Being aware of students’ affective responses, such as
enjoyment or anxiety, can help encourage learners to control their metacogni-
tive knowledge and interest in tasks.
It is also crucial to examine L2 learners’ metacognition in relation to
their behavioural patterns, such as motivation. Learners may lack the drive
to assume an active role in their learning. Engaging students in activities
that help them understand their language-learning skills and that provide
opportunities to activate prior knowledge can foster introspection on old
and new knowledge. Teachers and students can collaborate to reflect on the
language-learning process, transferring metacognitive strategies to new
contexts.
Educators must consider students’ language proficiency levels, which
can influence the effectiveness of metacognitive instruction for reading
comprehension (Zhang et al., 2008) and writing (Ma & F. Teng, 2021).
Sparks and Ganschow (1993) argued that L1 achievement affects L2
aptitude and proficiency. Linking inefficient use of language-learning strat-
egies with poor foreign language outcomes can be problematic because
learners with low L1 achievement may struggle to become metacognitively
aware and to use necessary strategies (Sparks & Ganschow, 1993). Thus,
higher-proficiency learners are more likely to employ effective reading and
writing strategies, whereas lower-proficiency learners may rely excessively
on bottom-up decoding and spelling.
Teachers also need to make metacognitive instruction explicit for low-
proficiency learners. Difficulties in L2 learning often stem from challenges in
L1 skills and processing L2 phonological, orthographic, syntactic, and semantic
relationships. Combining metacognitive strategies with linguistic and schematic

knowledge can help learners reconstruct clues, interpret meaning, summarise

information, and make inferences when reading and writing. Explicit instruction
can enable learners to use different strategies to coherently understand text or
writing assignments. In conclusion, while metacognitive instruction has a long
way to go, it shows great promise for enhancing language learning. By addressing
associated challenges and focusing on explicit instruction, particularly for low-
proficiency learners, teachers can help students develop robust metacognitive
skills that support lifelong learning and cognitive development.
As we anticipate the future of metacognitive awareness in language learn-
ing, AI technologies like ChatGPT are poised to play a pivotal role. Mizumoto
(2023) introduced the Metacognitive Resource Use (MRU) framework, which
integrates data-driven learning within a broad ecosystem of generative AI
tools. This framework emphasises metacognitive knowledge and regulation,
capitalising on the strengths of both data-driven learning (DDL) and genera-
tive AI (GenAI) while addressing their limitations. The importance of meta-
cognitive awareness in effectively utilising AI resources is underscored.
Abdelhalim (2024) explored learners’ metacognitive awareness in using
ChatGPT to enhance research skills, collecting both quantitative and qualita-
tive data from twenty-seven EFL undergraduate students over one semester.
The study revealed distinct differences in ChatGPT usage between students
with low and high metacognitive awareness, with a positive correlation
between metacognitive awareness scores and students’ perceptions of
ChatGPT. F. Teng (2024c) examined how different levels of metacognitive
awareness influenced students’ experiences and perceptions. Using a mixed-
method research design, data from forty EFL undergraduates in a semester-
long writing course revealed significant differences in writing motivation,
engagement, self-efficacy, and collaborative writing tendencies. A positive
correlation was also found between metacognitive awareness scores and
students’ perceptions and practices of using ChatGPT. Interview data high-
lighted a spectrum of behaviours, from simply copying text to effectively
using ChatGPT for writing feedback, among students with varying levels of
metacognitive awareness.
Exploring metacognitive awareness in the context of using ChatGPT
presents promising opportunities for enhancing our understanding of how
individuals regulate and manage their cognitive processes. This exploration
is particularly relevant as learners increasingly engage with AI tools like
ChatGPT to support their writing endeavours. As we move forward, it is
likely that the role of metacognitive awareness in the effective utilisation
of ChatGPT will become a significant trend, especially in EFL settings.
Understanding how learners’ metacognitive skills influence their

interaction with ChatGPT can provide valuable insights into optimising

educational practices and improving learning outcomes. By focusing on the
nuances of metacognitive awareness, educators can better support students
in harnessing the full potential of AI technologies for language learning
and beyond.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 105.235.136.131, on 08 Mar 2025 at 00:06:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009581295
References
Abdelhalim, S. M. (2024). Using ChatGPT to promote research competency:
English as a Foreign Language undergraduates’ perceptions and practices
across varied metacognitive awareness levels. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12948.
Alamer, A., Teng, M. F., & Mizumoto, A. (2024). Revisiting the construct
validity of Self-regulating capacity in vocabulary learning scale: The con-
firmatory composite analysis (CCA) approach. Applied Linguistics,
amae023. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amae023.
Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching
and learning. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, ERIC.
Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
Anderson, N. J. (2008). Metacognition and good language learners. In
C. Griffiths (ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 99–110).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Azevedo, R. (2020). Reflections on the field of metacognition: Issues, chal-
lenges, and opportunities. Metacognition and Learning, 15, 91–98.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839.
Baker, L. (2015). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for
metacognitively oriented reading instruction. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block,
K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (eds.), Metacognition in literacy
learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp.
61–79). New York: Routledge.
Baker, L. (2017). The development of metacognitive knowledge and control of
comprehension: Contributors and consequences. In K. Mokhtari (ed.),
Improving reading comprehension through metacognitive reading instruc-
tion (pp. 1–31). Lanham, MD: Roman and Littlefield.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition.
New York: Routledge.
Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by
researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and
Instruction, 7(2), 161–186.
Brinck, I., & Liljenfors, R. (2013). The developmental origin of metacognition.
Infant and Child Development, 22(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1749.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and
other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (eds.),

Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bui, G., & Kong, A. (2019). Metacognitive instruction for peer review inter-
action in L2 writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11(2), 357–392.
Dimmitt, C., & McCormick, C. B. (2012). Metacognition in education. In
K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (eds.), APA educational psychology
handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 157–187).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the
conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated
learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409.
Efklides, A. (2001). The systemic nature of metacognitive experiences. In
P. Chambers, M. Izaute, & P.-J. Marescaux (eds.), Metacognition: Process,
function and use (pp. 19–34). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experi-
ences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1, 3–14.
Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Deﬁning its facets and levels of functioning
in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13,
277–287.
Fairbanks, C. M., Duffy, G. G., Faircloth, B. S. et al. (2010). Beyond know-
ledge: Exploring why some teachers are more thoughtfully adaptive than
others. Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (1–2), 161–171.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In
L. B. Resnick (ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of
cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of meta-
cognition. In F. E. Weinert and R. H. Kluwe (eds.), Metacognition,
Motivation and Understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fleming, S. M., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2012). Metacognition: Computation,
biology and function. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of
London. Series B, Biological sciences, 367(1594), 1280–1286. https://doi
.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0021
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing.
Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introduc-
tory course (5th ed). New York: Routledge.

Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening com-

prehension problems. System, 28, 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-
251X(99)00060-3
Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening devel-
opment: Theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39(2),
188–213.
Goh, C. (2018). Metacognition in second language listening. In J. Liontas (ed.),
The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Goh, C. (2023). Learners’ cognitive processing problems during comprehen-
sion as a basis for L2 listening research. System, 119, 103164.
Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young
learners. ELT Journal, 60(3), 222–232.
Goh, C., & Vandergrift, L. (2021). Teaching and learning second language
listening: Metacognition in action. New York: Routledge.
Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective.
System, 34(2), 165–182.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C., & Santangelo, T. (2018). Self-
regulation and writing. In D. Schunk & J. Greene (eds.), Handbook of self-
regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 138–152). New York:
Routledge.
Gu, P. Y. (2018). Validation of an online questionnaire of vocabulary learning
strategies for ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and
Teaching, 8(2), 325–350.
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language
learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643–679.
Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2009). Writing is applied metacog-
nition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (eds.), Handbook of
metacognition in education (pp. 154–172). New York: Routledge.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Brindle, M., & Sandmel, K. (2009). Metacognition
and children’s writing. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser
(eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 131–153). New York:
Routledge.
Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in
writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (eds.), The science of writing: Theories,
methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Haukås, Å. (2018). Metacognition in language learning and teaching: An
overview. In Å. Haukås, C. Bjørke, & M. Dypedahl (eds.), Metacognition
in language learning and teaching (pp. 11–20). Routledge.

Haukås, Å., Bjørke, C., & Dypedahl, M. (2018). (eds.). Metacognition in

language learning and teaching. New York: Routledge.
Hertzog, C. (2016). Aging and metacognitive control. In J. Dunlosky &
S. K. Tauber (eds.), Oxford library of psychology: The Oxford handbook of
metamemory (pp. 537–558). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hiver, P., & Whitehead, E. K. (2018). Teaching metacognitively: Adaptive
inside-out thinking in the language classroom. In Å. Haukås, C. Bjørke, &
M. Dypedahl (eds.), Metacognition in Language learning and teaching (pp.
243–262). New York: Routledge.
Kellogg, R. (1996). A model of working memory. In M. C. Levy & S. Ransdell
(eds.), The science of writing (pp. 57–72). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive development perspective.
Journal of Writing Research, 1, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-
2008.01.01.1.
Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated
learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in massive
open online courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33.
Koriat, A. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. In P. D. Zelazo,
M. Moscovich, & E. Thompson (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of con-
sciousness (pp. 289–325). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kress, G. (1982). Learning to write. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Larkin, S. (2009). Socially mediated metacognition and learning to write.
Thinking Skills & Creativity, 4(3), 149–159.
Lehtonen, T. (2000). Awareness of strategies is not enough: How learners
can give each other confidence to use them. Language Awareness, 9(2),
64–77.
Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2006). Precursors of metamemory in young
children: The role of theory of mind and metacognitive vocabulary.
Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 15–31.
Ma, J., & Teng, F. (2021). Metacognitive knowledge development of students
with differing levels of writing proficiency in a process-oriented course: An
action research study. In B. L. Reynolds & F. Teng. (eds.), Innovative
approaches in Teaching writing to Chinese speakers (pp. 92–117). Berlin:
DeGruyter Mouton.
McLeod, B., & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Restructuring or automaticity? Reading
in a second language. Language Learning, 36(2), 109–123.
Mizumoto, A. (2013). Effects of self-regulated vocabulary learning process on
self-efficacy. Innovation in Language Learning & Teaching, 7(3), 253–265.

Mizumoto, A. (2023). Data-driven learning meets Generative AI: Introducing the

framework of metacognitive resource use. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 3(3),
100074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100074
Mizumoto, A. & Takeuchi. O. (2012). Adaptation and validation of
Self-regulating capacity in vocabulary learning scale. Applied Linguistics,
33, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr044
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive
awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2),
249–259.
Nation, I. S. P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and
Teaching, 1(1), 1–12.
Nation, I. S. P. (2022). The different aspects of vocabulary knowledge. In
S. Webb (ed.), The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 15–29).
New York: Routledge.
Nguyen, L. T. C., & Gu, Y. Q. (2013). Strategy-based instruction: A
learner-focused approach to developing learner autonomy. Language
Teaching Research, 17, 9–30.
Norman, E., Pfuhl, G., Saele, R. et al. (2019). Metacognition in psychology.
Review of General Psychology, 23, 403–424.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second
language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Paris, S., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning:
A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1239–1252.
Pennequin, V., Sorel, O., & Mainguy, M. (2010). Metacognition, executive
functions and aging: The effect of training in the use of metacognitive skills
to solve mathematical word problems. Journal of Adult Development, 17(3),
168–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10804-010-9098-3
Pressley, M., & Gaskins, I. W. (2006). Metacognitively competent reading
comprehension is constructively responsive reading: How can such reading
be developed in students? Metacognition and Learning, 1, 99–113.
Rasekh, Z. E., & Ranjbary, R. (2003). Metacognitive strategy training for
vocabulary learning. TESL-EJ, 7(2), 1–18.
Rose, H. (2012). Reconceptualizing strategic learning in the face of self-regulation:
Throwing language learning strategies out with the bathwater. Applied
Linguistics, 33, 92–98.

Rost, M. (2016). Teaching and researching listening (3rd ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Rodgers, J. (2018). Teaching/Developing vocabulary through metacognition. In
J. I. Liontas (ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching
(pp. 1–6). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Sato, M. (2022). Metacognition. In S. Li, P. Hiver, & M. Papi (eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differ-
ences (pp. 95–108). New York: Routledge.
Schraw, G. A. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional
Science, 26, 113–125.
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). New York: Springer.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.
Shen, X., & Teng, M. F. (2024). Three-wave cross-lagged model on the correlations
between critical thinking skills, self-directed learning competency and AI-
assisted writing. Thinking Skills & Creativity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.tsc.2024.101524.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993). Searching for the cognitive locus of foreign
language learning problems: Linking first and second language learning.
Modern Language Journal, 77, 289–302.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.
Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
Svalberg, A. M. (2007). Language awareness and language learning. Language
Teaching, 40(4), 287–308.
Sun, Q., Pan, H., & Zhan, I. (2024). Untangling the relationship between
English as a foreign language learners’ metacognitive experiences and writ-
ing proficiency: A mixed-methods approach. System, 117, 103100. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103100.
Teng, L. S. (2022). Self-regulated learning and second language writing:
Fostering strategic language learners. Cham: Springer.
Teng, L. S. (2024). Individual differences in self-regulated learning: Exploring
the nexus of motivational beliefs, self-efficacy, and SRL strategies in EFL
writing. Language Teaching Research, 28(2), 366–388. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1362168821100688.
Teng, L. S., Yuan, E., & Sun, P. J. (2020). A mixed-methods approach to
investigating motivational regulation strategies and writing proficiency in
English as a foreign language contexts. System, 88, 102182. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.system.2019.102182.

Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of multi-

dimensional models of self-Regulated learning strategies. The Modern
Language Journal, 100 (3), 674–701.
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2018). Effects of motivational regulation strategies
on writing performance: a mediation model of self-regulated learning of
writing in English as a second/foreign language. Metacognition and
Learning, 13, 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9171-4.
Teng, L. S. & Zhang, L. J. (2020). Empowering learners in the second/foreign
language classroom: Can self-regulated learning strategies-based writing
instruction make a difference? Journal of Second Language Writing, 48,
100701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100701.
Teng, L. S. & Zhang, J. L. (2022). Can self-regulation be transferred to second/
foreign language learning and teaching? Current status, controversies, and
future directions. Applied Linguistics, 43(3), 587–595. https://doi.org/
10.1093/applin/amab032.
Teng, M. F. (2016). Immediate and delayed effects of embedded metacognitive
instruction on Chinese EFL students’ English writing and regulation of
cognition. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 22, 289–302. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tsc.2016.06.005
Teng, M. F. (2019). A comparison of text structure and self-regulated strategy
instruction for elementary school students’ writing. English Teaching:
Practice and Critique, 18(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-07-
2018-0070
Teng, M. F. (2020a). The beneﬁts of metacognitive reading strategy awareness
instruction for young learners of English as a second language. Literacy, 54,
29–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12181.
Teng, M. F. (2020b). Tertiary-level students’ English writing performance and
metacognitive awareness: A group metacognitive support perspective.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(4), 551–568. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1595712.
Teng, M. F. (2020c). Interactive-whiteboard-technology-supported collaborative
writing: Writing achievement, metacognitive activities, and co-regulation
patterns. System, 97, 102426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020
.102426.
Teng, M. F. (2020d). Young learners’ reading and writing performance:
Exploring collaborative modeling of text structure as an additional compo-
nent of self-regulated strategy development. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 65, 100870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100870.
Teng, M. F. (2020e). The role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in
mediating university EFL learners’ writing performance. Innovation in

Language Learning and Teaching, 14(5), 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/

17501229.2019.1615493.
Teng, M. F. (2021a). The effectiveness of incorporating metacognitive
prompts in collaborative writing on academic English writing skills.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(3), 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1002/
acp.3789.
Teng, M. F. (2021b). Coupling text structure and self-regulated strategy instruc-
tion for ESL primary school students’ writing outcomes. Porta Linguarum,
31, 61–76. https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.v0i35.16861.
Teng, M. F. (2022a). Effects of cooperative–metacognitive instruction on EFL
learners’ writing and metacognitive awareness. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 42(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1835606.
Teng, M. F. (2022b). Effects of individual and group metacognitive prompts on
tertiary-level students’ metacognitive awareness and writing outcomes. Asia-
Pacific Education Researcher, 31, 601–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-
021-00611-8.
Teng, M. F. (2022c). Exploring awareness of metacognitive knowledge and
acquisition of vocabulary knowledge in primary grades: A latent growth
curve modelling approach. Language Awareness, 31(4), 470–494. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1972116.
Teng, M. F. (2023a). Metacognition. In Z. Wen, B., Adriana, B., Mailce, &
F. Teng (eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language acqui-
sition: Theory, assessment & pedagogy (pp. 175–199). Berlin: De Gruyter
Mounton.
Teng, M. F. (2023b). Exploring self-regulated vocabulary learning strategies,
proficiency, working memory, and vocabulary learning through word-
focused exercises. The Language Learning Journal. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09571736.2023.2267575.
Teng, M. F. (2024a). Metacognition and autonomy in building a community for
language learning through VR digital gaming. Computers & Education:
X Reality, 4, 100060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cexr.2024.100060.
Teng, M. F. (2024b). Growth mindset in vocabulary learning from reading in
a foreign language context. International Journal of Applied Positive
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-024-00161-6.
Teng, M. F. (2024c). Metacognitive awareness and EFL learners’ perceptions
and experiences in utilizing ChatGPT for writing feedback. European
Journal of Education, 60, e12811. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12811.
Teng, M. F. (2024d). Do self-efficacy belief and emotional adjustment matter
for social support and anxiety in online English learning in the digital era?.
Digital Applied Linguistics, 1, 2227. https://doi.org/10.29140/dal.v1.2227.

Teng, M. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.462.
Teng, M. F., & Huang, J. (2023). The effects of incorporating metacognitive
strategies instruction into collaborative writing on writing complexity, accur-
acy, and fluency. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 43(4), 1071–1090.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1982675
Teng, M. F., & Ma, M. (2024). Assessing metacognition-based student feedback
literacy for academic writing. Assessing Writing. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.asw.2024.100811
Teng, M. F., & Mizumoto, A. (2024). Validation of metacognitive knowledge in
vocabulary. learning and its predictive effects on incidental vocabulary
learning from reading. International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0294
Teng, M. F., Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2024). Understanding growth
mindset, self-regulated vocabulary learning, and vocabulary knowledge.
System, 122, 103255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103255.
Teng, M. F. & Qin, C. (2024). Assessing metacognitive writing strategies and
the predictive effects on multimedia writing. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2024.2325132.
Teng, M. F., Qin, C., & Wang, C. (2022). Validation of metacognitive academic
writing strategies and the predictive effects on academic writing performance
in a foreign language context. Metacognition and Learning, 17, 167–190.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09278-4.
Teng, M. F., & Reynolds, B. L. (2019). Effects of individual and group
metacognitive prompts on EFL reading comprehension and incidental
vocabulary learning. PloS ONE, 14(5), e0215902. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0215902.
Teng, M. F., Wang, C., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Assessing self-regulatory writing
strategies and their predictive effects on young EFL learners’ writing per-
formance. Assessing Writing, 51, 100573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021
.100573.
Teng, M. F. & Yue, M. (2023). Metacognitive writing strategies, critical think-
ing skills, and academic writing performance: A structural equation modeling
approach. Metacognition and Learning, 18, 237–260. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11409-022-09328-5.
Teng, M. F., & Zhang, D. (2024). Task-induced involvement load, vocabulary
learning in a foreign language, and their association with metacognition.
Language Teaching Research, 28(2), 531–555.

Teng, M. F., & 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. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91(4), 1202–1230.
Teng, M. F., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Development of metacognitive knowledge
and morphological awareness: A longitudinal study of ethnic minority multi-
lingual young learners in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2052301.
Teng, M. F., & Zhang, L. J. (2024a). Ethnic minority multilingual young
learners’ longitudinal development of metacognitive knowledge and breadth
of vocabulary knowledge. Metacognition and Learning, 19, 123–146. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09360-z.
Teng, M. F., & Zhang, L. J. (2024b). Assessing self-regulated writing strategies,
working memory, L2 proﬁciency level, and multimedia writing performance.
Language Awareness. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2023.2300269.
Teng, M. F., & Zhang, L. J (2024c). Validating a new method for assessing
young foreign language learners’ metacognitive knowledge. Research
Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 100121. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rmal.2024.100121.
Tseng, W.-T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing
strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 27, 78–102.
Urban, M., Urban, K., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2023). The effect of a distributed
metacognitive strategy intervention on reading comprehension. Metacognition
and Learning, 18, 405–424.
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 24, 3–25.
Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacog-
nitive awareness and proﬁciency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26,
70–89.
Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language
listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40, 191–210.
Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S. C. (2018). Learner variables important for
success in L2 listening comprehension in French immersion classrooms.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 74, 79–100. https://doi.org/10.3138/
cmlr.3906.
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language
listening: Metacognition in action. New York: Routledge.

Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The
metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation.
Language Learning, 56(3), 431–462.
Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. A., & Afflerbach, P. (2006).
Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations.
Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.
Victori, M., & Lockhart, W. (1995). Enhancing metacognition in self-directed
language learning. System, 23(2), 223–234.
Weinert, F. E. (1987). Introduction and overview: Metacognition and motiv-
ation as determinants of effective learning and understanding. In
F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and under-
standing (pp. 1–16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wen, Q., & Johnson, R. K. (1997). L2 learner variables and English achieve-
ment: A study of tertiary-level English majors in China. Applied Linguistics,
18(1), 28–48.
Wen, Z., Sparks, R., Biedroń, A., & Teng, F. (2023). Cognitive individual
differences in second language acquisition: Theories, assessment and peda-
gogy. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Wenden, A. L. (1987). Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive
abilities of L2 learners. Language Learning, 37(4), 573–597.
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning.
Applied Linguistics, 19, 515–537.
Wenden, A. L. (2002). Learner development in language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 23, 32–55.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2005). Measuring self-regulated learning. In
M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (eds.), Handbook of self-
regulation (pp. 531–566). Burlingtton: Elsevier Academic Press.
Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive know-
ledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language
Awareness, 10(4), 268–288.
Zhang, L. J. & Zhang, D. (2018). Metacognition in TESOL: theory and practice.
In J. I. Liontas (ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language
Teaching. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Zhang, L. J., Gu, Y., & Hu, G. (2008) A cognitive perspective on Singaporean
primary school pupils’ use of reading strategies in learning to read in English.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 245–271.
Zhou, S., & Rose, H. (2024). A longitudinal study on lecture listening difficul-
ties and self-regulated learning strategies across different proficiency levels
in EMI higher education. Applied Linguistics Review. https://doi.org/
10.1515/applirev-2023-0113.

Zhou, S., Xu, J., & Thomas, N. (2024). L2 listening in a digital era: Developing
and validating the mobile-assisted self-regulated listening strategy question-
naire (MSRLS-Q). System, 123, 103310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system
.2024.103310.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated
learning and performance. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 49–64).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory inﬂuences
on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31
(4), 845–862.

Heath Rose
University of Oxford
Heath Rose is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Oxford and Deputy
Director (People) of the Department of Education. Before moving into academia, Heath
worked as a language teacher in Australia and Japan in both school and university contexts.
He is author of numerous books, such as Introducing Global Englishes, The Japanese Writing
System, Data Collection Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, and Global Englishes for
Language Teaching.

Jim McKinley
University College London
Jim McKinley is Professor of Applied Linguistics at IOE Faculty of Education
and Society, University College London. He has taught in higher education in the
UK, Japan, Australia, and Uganda, as well as US schools. His research targets implications
of globalization for L2 writing, language education, and higher education studies,
particularly the teaching-research nexus and English medium instruction. Jim is
co-author and co-editor of several books on research methods in applied linguistics.
He is an Editor-in-Chief of the journal System.

Advisory Board
Gary Barkhuizen, University of Auckland
Marta Gonzalez-Lloret, University of Hawaii
Li Wei, UCL Institute of Education
Victoria Murphy, University of Oxford
Brian Paltridge, University of Sydney
Diane Pecorari, Leeds University
Christa Van der Walt, Stellenbosch University
Yongyan Zheng, Fudan University

About the Series

This Elements series aims to close the gap between researchers and practitioners by
allying research with language teaching practices, in its exploration of
research informed teaching, and teaching-informed research. The series builds upon
a rich history of pedagogical research in its exploration of new insights within the ﬁeld
of language teaching.

Elements in the Series

Mediating Innovation through Language Teacher Education
Martin East
Teaching Young Multilingual Learners: Key Issues and New Insights
Luciana C. de Oliveira and Loren Jones
Teaching English as an International Language
Ali Fuad Selvi, Nicola Galloway and Heath Rose
Peer Assessment in Writing Instruction
Shulin Yu
Assessment for Language Teaching
Aek Phakiti and Constant Leung
Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Developmental Education
Matthew E. Poehner and James P. Lantolf
Language Learning beyond English: Learner Motivation
in the Twenty-First Century
Ursula Lanvers
Extensive Reading
Jing Zhou
Core Concepts in English for Speciﬁc Purposes
Helen Basturkmen
Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language
Jian E. Peng
Teaching Second Language Academic Writing
Christine M. Tardy
Metacognition in Language Teaching
Mark Feng Teng

A full series listing is available at: www.cambridge.org/ELAT

(Kees - de - Bot, - Ralph - B. - Ginsberg, - Claire - Kramsch) - Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective PDF
No ratings yet
(Kees - de - Bot, - Ralph - B. - Ginsberg, - Claire - Kramsch) - Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective PDF
288 pages
Sociocultural Theory Second Language Learning - Oxford - James P - Lantolf - 2013 - Oxford University Press
No ratings yet
Sociocultural Theory Second Language Learning - Oxford - James P - Lantolf - 2013 - Oxford University Press
454 pages
Key Questions in Language Teaching
No ratings yet
Key Questions in Language Teaching
2 pages
Aubé & Rousseau 2005
No ratings yet
Aubé & Rousseau 2005
16 pages
Grammar Teaching-Practice or Consciousness-Raising - Ellis - Sem Comentários...
No ratings yet
Grammar Teaching-Practice or Consciousness-Raising - Ellis - Sem Comentários...
5 pages
David Nunan Research Methods in Languag
No ratings yet
David Nunan Research Methods in Languag
130 pages
LT 42.2
100% (1)
LT 42.2
144 pages
Selected Papers XXX Vi If Aapi Conference
100% (1)
Selected Papers XXX Vi If Aapi Conference
170 pages
L2 Learning Strategies Application
No ratings yet
L2 Learning Strategies Application
209 pages
Teaching Language in Context Chapter 2 - Parte 1
100% (2)
Teaching Language in Context Chapter 2 - Parte 1
17 pages
Pawlak, M (2011) Extending The Boundaries of Research On Second Language Learning and Teaching (ENTIRE BOOK)
100% (1)
Pawlak, M (2011) Extending The Boundaries of Research On Second Language Learning and Teaching (ENTIRE BOOK)
343 pages
Grabe 1991
No ratings yet
Grabe 1991
32 pages
Ellis Moura o 2021 ETP
No ratings yet
Ellis Moura o 2021 ETP
4 pages
Developing Professional-Level Language Proficiency: Betty Lou Leaver
No ratings yet
Developing Professional-Level Language Proficiency: Betty Lou Leaver
24 pages
Roles of Teachers and Learners
No ratings yet
Roles of Teachers and Learners
19 pages
English As A Lingua Franca. Attitude and Identity
No ratings yet
English As A Lingua Franca. Attitude and Identity
38 pages
(ELT Journal 1991-Jul Vol. 45 Iss. 3) Thornbury, S. - Metaphors We Work by - EFL and Its Metaphors (1991) (10.1093 - Elt - 45.3.193) - Libgen - Li
No ratings yet
(ELT Journal 1991-Jul Vol. 45 Iss. 3) Thornbury, S. - Metaphors We Work by - EFL and Its Metaphors (1991) (10.1093 - Elt - 45.3.193) - Libgen - Li
8 pages
Languages and The Self
No ratings yet
Languages and The Self
14 pages
Ten Generalizations From SLA Research Activity
No ratings yet
Ten Generalizations From SLA Research Activity
2 pages
Implicit Learning and The Cognitive Unconscious
No ratings yet
Implicit Learning and The Cognitive Unconscious
23 pages
2.4 Teaching Large Multilevel Classes - Nathalie Hess PDF
100% (1)
2.4 Teaching Large Multilevel Classes - Nathalie Hess PDF
15 pages
Previewpdf
No ratings yet
Previewpdf
116 pages
Butler, YG (2011) The Implementation of Communicative and Task-Based Language Teaching in The Asia-Pacific Region
No ratings yet
Butler, YG (2011) The Implementation of Communicative and Task-Based Language Teaching in The Asia-Pacific Region
22 pages
Littleetal 2003 PDF
No ratings yet
Littleetal 2003 PDF
261 pages
The Communicative Approach Revisited by Penny Ur
No ratings yet
The Communicative Approach Revisited by Penny Ur
69 pages
Wilkins (1976) - Notional Syllabuses
No ratings yet
Wilkins (1976) - Notional Syllabuses
54 pages
1997 Dornyei Scott LL
100% (1)
1997 Dornyei Scott LL
38 pages
Munoz 3
No ratings yet
Munoz 3
24 pages
'Social Psychology and Second Language Learning' R. C. Gardner
No ratings yet
'Social Psychology and Second Language Learning' R. C. Gardner
216 pages
MarceloDN - Teaching English in The Elementary Grades Language Arts
No ratings yet
MarceloDN - Teaching English in The Elementary Grades Language Arts
113 pages
The Role of Repetition in CLIL Teacher Discoursce
No ratings yet
The Role of Repetition in CLIL Teacher Discoursce
10 pages
Beyond The Sentence
No ratings yet
Beyond The Sentence
193 pages
Individual Differences in Second Languag
No ratings yet
Individual Differences in Second Languag
25 pages
The Communicative Classroom - Tricia Hedge
No ratings yet
The Communicative Classroom - Tricia Hedge
20 pages
Oxford, R 2003 Learner Autonomy Chapter in Palfreyman - Smith
No ratings yet
Oxford, R 2003 Learner Autonomy Chapter in Palfreyman - Smith
17 pages
AOUNALIWalid 3ASTextbooks
100% (1)
AOUNALIWalid 3ASTextbooks
257 pages
Chaudron (1986) - WP5
100% (1)
Chaudron (1986) - WP5
39 pages
Sociocultural Perspectives On CALL
No ratings yet
Sociocultural Perspectives On CALL
19 pages
Language and Thought - Carroll
No ratings yet
Language and Thought - Carroll
136 pages
Gass, Mackey & Pica (1998) The Role of Input and Interaction in SLA Introduction To The Special Issue PDF
100% (2)
Gass, Mackey & Pica (1998) The Role of Input and Interaction in SLA Introduction To The Special Issue PDF
9 pages
A CLIL Approach: Evolution and Current Situation in Europe and in Spain
No ratings yet
A CLIL Approach: Evolution and Current Situation in Europe and in Spain
10 pages
New Perspectives On Willingness To Communicate in A Second Language (Nourollah Zarrinabadi (Editor) Etc.)
No ratings yet
New Perspectives On Willingness To Communicate in A Second Language (Nourollah Zarrinabadi (Editor) Etc.)
266 pages
McDonough - Motivation in ELT
No ratings yet
McDonough - Motivation in ELT
3 pages
Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Language Teaching/learning: Penny Ur 2018 25th International IATEFL Slovenia Conference
No ratings yet
Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Language Teaching/learning: Penny Ur 2018 25th International IATEFL Slovenia Conference
60 pages
SWAIN LAPKIN 2002 Talking It Through
100% (1)
SWAIN LAPKIN 2002 Talking It Through
20 pages
Taboos and Controversial Issues in Foreign Language Education
No ratings yet
Taboos and Controversial Issues in Foreign Language Education
21 pages
Teachers' Viewpoint: Translanguaging in English-Instructed Classes
No ratings yet
Teachers' Viewpoint: Translanguaging in English-Instructed Classes
6 pages
The Nature of Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching
100% (2)
The Nature of Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching
54 pages
Sakui & Cowie 2012 The Dark Side of Motivation Teachers' Perspectives On Unmotivation
No ratings yet
Sakui & Cowie 2012 The Dark Side of Motivation Teachers' Perspectives On Unmotivation
9 pages
Why Are You Learning A Second Language
No ratings yet
Why Are You Learning A Second Language
29 pages
Gardner
No ratings yet
Gardner
22 pages
Inductive and Deductive Approach in TESOL
100% (2)
Inductive and Deductive Approach in TESOL
5 pages
The Differential Effects of Three Types of Task Planning On The Fluency, Complexity, and Accuracy in L2 Oral Production
No ratings yet
The Differential Effects of Three Types of Task Planning On The Fluency, Complexity, and Accuracy in L2 Oral Production
36 pages
Dimensions of Motivation in Language Learning
No ratings yet
Dimensions of Motivation in Language Learning
11 pages
Understanding Language Teaching From Method To Postmethod Chapter 8
100% (1)
Understanding Language Teaching From Method To Postmethod Chapter 8
25 pages
Field Dependence Vs Independence Cognitive Styles Questionnaire
No ratings yet
Field Dependence Vs Independence Cognitive Styles Questionnaire
3 pages
Power and Meaning Making in an EAP Classroom: Engaging with the Everyday
From Everand
Power and Meaning Making in an EAP Classroom: Engaging with the Everyday
Christian W. Chun
No ratings yet
L2 Grammatical Representation and Processing: Theory and Practice
From Everand
L2 Grammatical Representation and Processing: Theory and Practice
Deborah Arteaga
No ratings yet
Developing Critical Languaculture Pedagogies in Higher Education: Theory and Practice
From Everand
Developing Critical Languaculture Pedagogies in Higher Education: Theory and Practice
Adriana Raquel Díaz
No ratings yet
Third Language Learners: Pragmatic Production and Awareness
From Everand
Third Language Learners: Pragmatic Production and Awareness
Maria Pilar Safont Jorda
No ratings yet
Draw A Table On A Piece of Paper and Share It With...
No ratings yet
Draw A Table On A Piece of Paper and Share It With...
1 page
3ASL Test2
No ratings yet
3ASL Test2
2 pages
3ASL Tests Civilizations
No ratings yet
3ASL Tests Civilizations
13 pages
Reported Speech
No ratings yet
Reported Speech
1 page
ICTDBS505 Student Assessment Task 3
No ratings yet
ICTDBS505 Student Assessment Task 3
19 pages
Contemporary Issuyin Education
No ratings yet
Contemporary Issuyin Education
71 pages
LDR400 2024 01 SG
No ratings yet
LDR400 2024 01 SG
58 pages
Pilaf Honey September 2021march 2022 Pilaf Honey Download
No ratings yet
Pilaf Honey September 2021march 2022 Pilaf Honey Download
37 pages
Civil Engineering Practice Portfolio PDF Free
No ratings yet
Civil Engineering Practice Portfolio PDF Free
7 pages
PHL205
No ratings yet
PHL205
98 pages
Marine Workshop
No ratings yet
Marine Workshop
18 pages
History Activity 2
No ratings yet
History Activity 2
4 pages
TOK Essay
No ratings yet
TOK Essay
5 pages
Judiciary Exams
No ratings yet
Judiciary Exams
6 pages
1 Reality & Knowledge
No ratings yet
1 Reality & Knowledge
12 pages
Thesis Writing Guide Social Format 2024
No ratings yet
Thesis Writing Guide Social Format 2024
7 pages
Forrester - 1987 - Lessons From System Dynamics Modeling
No ratings yet
Forrester - 1987 - Lessons From System Dynamics Modeling
14 pages
Wings of Fire: A Message Given by Dr. Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam Through His Autobiography
No ratings yet
Wings of Fire: A Message Given by Dr. Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam Through His Autobiography
30 pages
Knowledge Management (MGTE 630) What Are The Factor of Successful Knowledge Management Implementation? Ans
No ratings yet
Knowledge Management (MGTE 630) What Are The Factor of Successful Knowledge Management Implementation? Ans
5 pages
Danziger - Polycentric
No ratings yet
Danziger - Polycentric
8 pages
Teoría de La Traducción Audiovisual
No ratings yet
Teoría de La Traducción Audiovisual
32 pages
Diploma Engineering: Laboratory Manual
No ratings yet
Diploma Engineering: Laboratory Manual
120 pages
Final Exam Principle in Teaching Mathematics
No ratings yet
Final Exam Principle in Teaching Mathematics
5 pages
Difficulties in Listening of The First Year Students at Tay Do University in Vietnam
No ratings yet
Difficulties in Listening of The First Year Students at Tay Do University in Vietnam
9 pages
Nursing Science and The Foundation of Knowledge
No ratings yet
Nursing Science and The Foundation of Knowledge
37 pages
ĐỀ DỰ ĐOÁN HSA TIẾNG ANH SỐ 6
No ratings yet
ĐỀ DỰ ĐOÁN HSA TIẾNG ANH SỐ 6
13 pages
Chapter-IV - Teaching Methods of ICT
No ratings yet
Chapter-IV - Teaching Methods of ICT
23 pages
教科书作业答案
100% (1)
教科书作业答案
6 pages
Alchemy Science 5D
No ratings yet
Alchemy Science 5D
23 pages
Writing Coursebook - Academic Discussion - Student Book
100% (1)
Writing Coursebook - Academic Discussion - Student Book
53 pages
Political Thought - Plato
No ratings yet
Political Thought - Plato
14 pages
Sub Topics Under Literature Review
100% (1)
Sub Topics Under Literature Review
8 pages
Grade 6 Social Studies Curriculum Based Test Sample Test Booklet 2022
No ratings yet
Grade 6 Social Studies Curriculum Based Test Sample Test Booklet 2022
19 pages
Thesis Problem Formulation
100% (2)
Thesis Problem Formulation
7 pages

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.