Instrucción de concienciación metacognitiva: un estudio de método mixto
sobre el desarrollo de escritura y la motivación intrínseca de los
estudiantes de EFL de la escuela secundaria
Metacognitive awareness instruction: a mixed method study on high school EFL
learners’ writing development and intrinsic motivation
Mahdieh Akbarzadeh
1a
, Massoud Tajadini
2*
, Mehry Haddad Narafshan
3
Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran
123
Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5220-357X
1
Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5007-2289
2
Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9399-4750
3
Recibido: 03 de febrero de 2020 Aceptado: 19 de julio de 2020
Resumen
El objetivo de este estudio fue investigar el impacto del uso de la instrucción de conciencia
metacognitiva (MAI) en la habilidad de escritura de los estudiantes de EFL y su motivación
intrínseca. Para seguir este objetivo, se diseñaron y propusieron tres preguntas de investigación.
Las preguntas buscaban explorar el impacto del uso de la instrucción de conciencia
metacognitiva en el desempeño de la escritura de los alumnos y también saber si se podía
observar alguna relación significativa entre el desarrollo de la escritura de los alumnos y su
motivación intrínseca. Para alcanzar estos objetivos, dos grupos de estudiantes de EFL de
secundaria establecieron a los participantes del estudio. Para recopilar los datos del estudio, se
utilizaron tres instrumentos: una prueba de homogeneización, pruebas previas y posteriores a la
escritura y finalmente un cuestionario de motivación intrínseca desarrollado y examinado por
(Payne, 2007). Los logros del estudio indicaron el impacto positivo del uso de MAI en la mejora
de la escritura de los alumnos. Además, la motivación escrita de los alumnos aumentó
significativamente. Finalmente, se pudo observar una relación significativa entre los niveles de
escritura y la orientación de motivación de los alumnos.
Palabras clave: conciencia metacognitiva, escritura, motivación intrínseca, EFL.
Abstract
The goal of this study was to investigate the impact of using metacognitive awareness
instruction (MAI) on EFL learners’ writing skill and their intrinsic motivation. To follow this
goal, three research questions were designed and proposed. The questions sought to explore the
impact of using metacognitive awareness instruction on the writing performance of the learners
a
Correspondencia al autor
E-mail: mohammadazim56@yahoo.com
ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)
ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)
189
Apuntes Universitarios, 2020: 10(4), octubre-diciembre
ISSN: 2304-0335 DOI:https://doi.org/10.17162/au.v10i4.504
apuntesuniversitarios.upeu.edu.pe
and also to know if any meaningful relationship could be observed between the learners’ writing
development and their intrinsic motivation. To these goals, two groups of high school EFL
learners established the participants of the study. To collect the data of the study, three
instruments were used: a test of homogenization, pre and post writing tests and finally intrinsic
motivation questionnaire developed and examined by (Renee Payne, 2007). The achievements
of the study indicated the positive impact of using MAI on the writing improvement of the
learners. Moreover, the writing motivation of the learners significantly increased. Finally,
meaningful relationship could be observed between the writing levels and the motivation
orientation of the learners.
Keywords: metacognitive awareness, writing, intrinsic motivation, EFL.
Introduction
Recent interest in cognitive psychology has stressed the importance of taking account
of what is happening in the learner’s head and how they view learning since learners are not
just an empty box, but are actively involved in the teaching-learning process and have their own
attitudes towards teaching-learning components in terms of selecting an appropriate teaching
method and its principles that can suit their personal properties. They have different needs when
learning a foreign language and choose their own learning strategies and approaches.
All of this has led to an increasing awareness of the fact that individual differences in
learning need to be accounted for, one important of which is the motivation the learners bring
to the teaching situation and the other is the level of metacognitive awareness of the learners
(Skehan, 1989; Riding & Rayner, 2000; Ehrman, 1996; Dörnyei, 2005; Leaver et al., 2005; De
Bot et al., 2005). Moreover, motivation plays a great and vital role in establishing psychological
aspect of learning. In fact, its role is so large that sometimes it is hard to draw connections
among motivation and specific activities such as math and science, or even language skills (Hidi
& Boscolo, 2007).
Metacognition in EFL Context
Metacognition is defined as cognition about cognition or simply thought about the
thought, has become a major field of enquiry in cognitive and developmental psychology (Öz,
2005) and is recognized to affect cognition of human beings in various ways. The construct of
metacognition has also been recognized as having a great importance in learning (Flavell,
1987). Metacognitive awareness means being aware of how you think. In the ELT classroom,
it means being aware of how you learn. Developing metacognitive awareness is an important
part of helping learners become more effective and, importantly, more autonomous. If learners
are conscious of how they learn, then they can identify the most effective ways to learn more
effectively with higher motivation. One of the most effective and easiest ways to develop
metacognitive awareness is simply talking with learners about how they do things in the
classroom, such as recording new words, reading a text, and laying out a page in their notebooks
(Flavell, 1979).
Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios
2020: 10(4),189 - 202
ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)
ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)
190
Metacognition means “thinking about one’s own thinking”. There are two aspects of
metacognition: - reflection- thinking about what we know and self-regulation- managing how
we go about learning (Flavell, 1979; Brown, 1987). Taking together, these processes make up
an important aspect of learning and development. Developing these metacognitive abilities is
not simply about becoming reflective learners, but about acquiring specific learning strategies
as well. Metacognitive beliefs, metacognitive awareness, metacognitive experiences,
metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive skills, executive skills, higher-order skills,
metacomponents, metamemory are some of the terms that we are often using in association with
metacognition. Metacognitive awareness means being aware of how you think. Metacognition
is the awareness of one’s thinking and the strategies one is using. It enables students to be more
mindful of what they are doing, and why, and of how the skills they are learning might be used
differently in different situations (Hacker, 2009).
The need for training in metacognitive awareness- raising comes from the value of
metacognitive awareness in itself, for it “allows individuals to plan, sequence, and monitor their
learning in a way that directly improves performance”. For example, metacognitive knowledge
has been found to aid the learners’ choice of learning strategies, and if necessary, lead to their
adjustments. By improving strategy use, metacognitive knowledge “plays a compensatory role
in cognitive performance”, and “may also compensate for low ability or lack of relevant prior
knowledge (Schraw & Denison, 1994).
Intrinsic motivation
Among the studies of the last decade, Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory of
intrinsic motivation has influenced people in second and foreign language education (Dornyei,
2001; Noels, 2009; Noels et al., 2000; Wu, 2003). Probably, no one would argue against the
following assertions of their theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), “They [Children] are unendingly
curious, and they want to see the effects of their actions. Children are intrinsically motivated to
learn, to undertake challenges, and to solve problems”. And probably nor with their further
claim: “To achieve self-determination, one must provide informational structures, ones that
provide choice and competence feedback in the absence of pressure for specific performance”.
However, there is plenty of evidence from the EFL classroom to suggest that Deci and Ryan’s
thesis is significant but accounts only for part of the whole of intrinsic motivation, and therefore
is, in a very real sense, limited in its practical applications.
Flavell’s Metacognition Theory
Flavell (1979) viewed metacognition as learners' knowledge of their own cognition,
defining it as “knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena”. Metacognition is often
referred to in the literature as 'thinking about one's own thinking', or as 'cognitions about
Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios
2020: 10(4),189 - 202
ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)
ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)
191
cognitions'. It is usually related to learners' knowledge, awareness and control of the processes
by which they learn and the metacognitive learner is thought to be characterized by ability to
recognize, evaluate and, where needed, reconstruct existing ideas. Flavell's definition was
followed by numerous others, often portraying different emphases on or different understanding
of mechanisms and processes associated with metacognition.
According to the classic models, metacognition primarily consists of metacognitive
knowledge (a declarative component) and regulation (a procedural component). Metacognitive
knowledge refers to the knowledge about cognitive tasks, strategies and knowledge learners
possess about themselves and people (Flavell, 1979). Regulation refers to the monitoring and
control of one's cognitive processes during learning (Nelson & Narens, 1990). In addition to
these two prime components, recent findings show that metacognitive knowledge requires
competence in using it (Corsale & Ornstein, 1980; Schneider, 1985). Use of learning strategies
is certainly a necessary component. Another major component is evaluation of or reflection on
the result of one's learning, and experience. This metacognitive activity is an overall judgment
of the product of a learning experience. It provides feedback to the learner on the selection and
use of strategies leading to the refinement of one's metacognitive knowledge (Flavell, 1979;
Schunk & Ertmer, 1999).
Metacognitive awareness in writing
After the shift of paradigm towards progressive education and under the influence of
cognitivism, education witnessed a marked emphasis on experiential learning (Gold et al.,
2012) and problem solving (Mohanty, 2007). There has been a move toward process-oriented
theories of writing which is, as Hairston claims, a paradigm shift in composition theory. In the
new perspective, writing is viewed as a process of creation of meaning in which the writer gets
involved in the recursive process of preparing the draft, revising and checking.
Under the influence of cognitive psychology on models of writing in early 1980s, the
writers’ mental processes gained prominent importance (Johns, 1990). In a short time, terms
which had been borrowed from cognitive psychology found their place in the description of
writers’ mental processes. This trend gave birth to process-based models of writing. These
models began to examine anew the act of composing. Among these models the most notable
ones were developed by (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). Both models consider writing as
problem solving act and a higher order mechanism which deal with the constraints while
writing.
In Hayes & Flower model (1980), it is assumed that writing is basically a problem-
solving activity. Problem solving in this model means that the writer has to tackle the ongoing
problem of formulating, organizing, and producing text. To put it simply, the problem for a
writer is the act of producing the text for which he has to set goals and find a solution. To do
Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios
2020: 10(4),189 - 202
ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)
ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)
192
so, based on Hayes & Flower’s model, writers has to constantly make decisions regarding their
cognitive recourses (Wong, 1991). This necessitates the use of a higher order process which
seems to control cognitive processing. In Hayes & Flower model (1980), the monitor assumes
such a responsibility and checks the progress of planning, translating and reviewing. Therefore,
although not explicitly stated in the model, the monitor plays the role of metacognitive
awareness.
The goal of this study was assisting the learners in the writing class to enhance their
metacognitive awareness and consider its impact on the writing skill and intrinsic motivation
of high school EFL learners. The goal was introducing the teaching procedures in the writing
class being based on improving and fostering the metacognitive awareness of the learners.
Research Questions
To investigate the impact of metacognitive awareness in the writing class, the
following three directional questions were raised:
1. What is the impact of metacognitive instruction on high school EFL learners’ writing
skill?
2. What is the effect of metacognitive instruction on high school EFL learners’ intrinsic
motivation?
3. Is there any meaning relationship between high school EFL learners’ writing
development and intrinsic motivation?
Methodology
Participants
The population of the study was composed of all high school learners in a school in
Kerman, a city in the south east of Iran. The mother tongue of all learners was Farsi, with six
years of studying English at high school level. They were all females, aged 16 to 18. To
homogenize the population, Basic Oxford Placement Test (2003) was administered and a
sample of 46 made up the subjects who established the experimental group (EG: n=22) and the
other control group (CG: n= 24). The researcher used availability sampling procedures in order
to select the participants of the study.
To explore the relationship between the levels and the intrinsic motivation of the
learners, based on the posttest scores of writings, the researcher classifies the learners of each
group into two groups of high and low. Based on (Brown, 2005), the learners who had obtained
70% of the score were considered as high, and below it was classified as low. As a result, 69%
of the learners in the EG were estimated to be high and the other 31% were classified as low.
Of the CG, 45% were identified to be high and other 55% were classified as low.
Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios
2020: 10(4),189 - 202
ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)
ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)
193
Instrumentation
In order to collect the data of the study, three instruments were used: test of
homogenization, writing test, and writing intrinsic motivation questionnaire. Oxford Basic Test
(2002) was used to homogenize the participants of the two groups. The next instrument was
implementing writing test that was used both as pre and posttest in order to tap the writing level
of the participants both at the beginning of the study and at the end after they had received the
treatment. The test condition in terms of the allotted time, topic and scoring strategies were kept
the same for both groups.
To improve the reliability of the writing scores, the researcher increased the number of
raters to two (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010; Brown, 2005; Heaton, 1988; Hamp-Lyone, 2000)
and thus each candidate’s paper was assessed by two independent raters as well as the researcher
herself. In addition, the raters were instructed by the researcher to follow a holistic or impression
approach in rating the subjects’ papers (Heaton, 1988; Fulcher & Davidson, 2007).
To estimate the reliability of the scores offered by the three different raters, internal
consistency of the scores were estimated using Spearman Correlation. To examine the learners’
attitudes of the two groups on writing motivation, Writing Motivation Questionnaire (RMQ)
was used. This questionnaire sought to estimate the intrinsic writing motivation of the learners.
To this goal, the RMQ developed and examined in a study by (Payne, 2007) was used.
Originally, it was a 37-item questionnaire using five-point Likert scale. The participants of
both groups received the translated version of questionnaire, once before the study began and
next at the end of the experiment when they had received the treatment. Of the 37-items of the
questionnaire, 6 ones which were not related to this study were eliminated since they were about
on-line writing activities as well as academic purposes that were not true for the high school
learners of this study. Thus, the overall number of items of the questionnaire decreased to 31.
To estimate the content validity of the questionnaire after being translated, it was back
translated into English by an expert of translation and in several cases, some problems were
observed that were removed and the edited version was used. To estimate the reliability of the
questionnaire, the researcher used Chronbach’s Alfa. It is an approach, as (Brown & Hudson,
2003) discussed, to establishing reliability using a formula studying the relationship between
item numbers of the questionnaire, variance of the total scores, and the proportion of the
examinees who responded positively or negatively. Finally, it was proved to be reliable at .89
that was considered high enough.
Metacognitive strategy teaching
To present metacognitive strategies, the teacher explained what the strategy was, why it
Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios
2020: 10(4),189 - 202
ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)
ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)
194
was a useful, and how and when it was to be used. Thus, the teacher incorporated three
guidelines for EFL learners in her writing class. The first step was explicit instruction. As
Salehi & Farzad (2003) emphasized the important role metacognition plays in academic
learning, and recommended direct instruction as one effective classroom practice that would
help students to develop their metacognitive awareness. To this goal, the teacher summarized
five key features which focused on explanations of how to learn metacognitively.
The second step was scaffolded instruction. The instructional goal for the students was
to be able to self-regulate their own learning eventually without external support. Thus, the
teacher in this step adopted scaffolded instruction to provide students with guided practice until
their metacognitive strategies moved toward an automatic state. Scaffolding involves providing
support to students to bridge the gap between what they can do on their own and what they can
do with guidance from more competent others including teachers and peers.
As the final step, the teacher paid attention to the fact that metacognitive instruction
needed to be an integral part of the instructional objectives and could be achieved within a long
time of practice and activities. Thus, the writing class was exposed to the metacognitive
awareness procedures over an entire school year. It was basically important in this study that
the teachers had to implement metacognitive instruction in her classroom with a lot of patience.
Garner (1988), Hartman (2001), Salehi & Farzad (2003), and Sitko (1998) all advise that
metacognitive instruction takes up a great deal of class time, and that sometimes students’
progress and improvement are hard to be observed. Thus, both teacher and students needed
much patience and persistence to practice the series of teaching activities.
Results
Data of pre and post writing tests
Table 1
Data of pre and post-test of writing for the CG
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Pretest of CG
24
5.00
12.00
7.4583
1.81729
Posttest of CG
24
7.00
15.00
10.8333
2.09900
The Table 1 presents the data of pre and posttests of the CG. The mean for the pretests
is 7.45 that increases to 10.83 for the posttest.
Table 2
Data of pre and post-tests of writing for EG
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Pretest for EG
22
5.00
15.00
9.5455
2.55841
Posttest for EG
22
9.00
17.00
14.7727
2.42864
Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios
2020: 10(4),189 - 202
ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)
ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)
195
The Table 2 offers the pre and posttests data of the EG. The mean for the pretest is
calculated to be 9.54 that increases to 14.77 for the posttest.
Table 3
Paired samples test for the CG
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
Pair
1
Pre &
posttest
-3.37500
1.58286
0.32310
-4.04338
-2.70662
-10.446
23
0.000
The Table 3 presents paired samples T test for the CG. The p value= 0.000<0.05 at 23
degree of freedom. The data indicates meaningful relationship between the pre and posttests of
the two performances of the CG.
Table 4
Paired samples test for the EG
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
Pair
1
Pre &
posttest
-4.22727
1.79767
0.38326
-5.02431
-3.43023
-11.030
21
0.000
In the same manner, the data of Table 4 presents the t test value for the EG. Based on
the data, the p value= 0.000<0.05 and thus it indicates perfect meaningful relationship between
the performance of the subjects from pre to posttest. In fact, the equation here indicates the
effect of metacognitive awareness instruction for the EG who were exposed to the MAI.
Data of the questionnaire
Table 5
Data on the two questionnaires administration
N
CG mean
Std. Deviation
N
EG mean
Std. Deviation
Pre
administration
24
2.012
1.92877
22
2.0213
2.7548
Post
administration
24
2.975
2.8337
22
3.975
3.5376
The Table 5 proposes the data of the two administrations of the writing motivation
questionnaire. The mean for the first administration of the questionnaire for the EG was
estimated to be 2.02 and it increases to 3.97. The difference between the two means is an
Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios
2020: 10(4),189 - 202
ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)
ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)
196
indication of motivation improvement among the learners in the EG. However, the data for the
CG is different. The mean for the first administration of the questionnaire was 2.01 and it
increases to 2.9. although we can see some degree of improvement, it is not as high as the
motivation among the EG.
Table 6
Paired samples test for questionnaire administrations
Paired Differences
t
df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
PRE – POST
administrations
for EG
-0.91643
2.10878
0.56359
-2.13400
0.30114
-1.626
21
0.028
PRE- POST
administrations
for CG
-0.26467
0.98571
0.25451
-0.81054
0.28120
1.040
23
0.316
The Table 6 shows that there is meaningful relationship between the two administrations
of the questionnaires for the EG, p value= 0.028<0.05, but this is not true for the CG, since the
p value= 0.316> 0.05. It can be concluded that MAI had positive effect on the writing
motivation of the learners in the EG.
Table 7
Correlational between levels and motivation (CG)
N
P-Value
Pearson
Correlation
Variables
24
0.221
0.674
Levels and Motivation to Writing
Table 8
Correlational between levels and motivation (EG)
N
P-Value
Pearson
Correlation
Variables
22
0.004
0.755
Level and Motivation to Writing
Tables 7 and 8 present the data of the relationship between the two levels of the learners
and their motivation. Based on the data, it can be inferred that there is meaningful relationship
between the two levels and their degree of motivation. (Table 7) presents the data of the CG.
The p value was estimated to be 0.221>0.05 and it indicates no relationship. On the other hand,
(Table 8) demonstrated the data of EG. It shows that there is meaningful relationship between
the level motivation: p value= 0.004<0.05. From the given data, it can be inferred that the two
level have two different degree of motivation. In other words, the two level of the EG
Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios
2020: 10(4),189 - 202
ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)
ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)
197
demonstrated differently in terms of their responses towards motivation in learning writing.
Discussion
Both descriptive and inferential data supported the effective use of MAI in the writing
class and that the procedures significantly led to the intrinsic motivation development of the
learners. In other words, the achievements supported the fact that the learners could improve
their writing skill as well as their intrinsic motivation that could be a factor for the learners to
write actively. Moreover, the difference between the responses of the two levels to the
motivation questionnaire proved to be meaningful. In other words, intrinsic motivation is an
effective factor that can help the learners improve their writing skills more than the learners
who are demotivated. Based on achievement of the study, teachers are recommended to employ
some procedures that would impact the language skills of the learners by addressing their
special needs of their students as well as assisting them to feel more motivated. As it was
discussed before, writing is one of the most demotivating activities among the EFL learners in
Iran (Hyland, 2002) and in other countries, (Deci et al., 1999); and it is very essential for the
language teachers to employ the teaching techniques and procedures that can both improve the
given skill as well as motivating them to be an active and interested learner.
Various studies have shown that emotional and social factors are important and decisive
in second language learning. As students' attitudes and motivations become more internalized,
their desire to continue learning the language increases and their sense of competence in the
language under study increases (Skehan, 1989; Riding & Rayner, 2000; Ehrman, 1996;
Dörnyei, 2005; Leaver et al., 2005). Various studies have also shown that English language
learning strategies, including metacognitive awareness, affect English language learning, and
the use of these strategies is one of the characteristics of successful learners (Dornyei, 2001;
Noels, 2009; Noels et al., 2000; Wu, 2003). Metacognitive awareness is important for learning
English. English language learners can have the most successful learning when they have a
good insight into their personal abilities. If their level of metacognitive awareness improves,
their learning outcomes will also improve. The more a learner learns about effective learning
strategies and the limitations of their learning and memory abilities, the more likely they are to
succeed in learning English.
Conclusion
The implementation of MAI in the writing class and instructing the young EFL learners
supported the constructive use of these procedures and their impact on the intrinsic motivation
of the learners. Based on the study achievements, it can be claimed that to observe any sort of
improvement among the learners requires instructors to employ teaching procedures that are
effective, goal-oriented, and motivating. In fact, if the learners are provided with enough
Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios
2020: 10(4),189 - 202
ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)
ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)
198
strategy to write and at the same time feel motivated enough, the teaching steps will lead to
constructive results. The study achievements are compatible with some studies that were carried
out on similar topics. (Jacobs y Paris, 1987) investigated the relationship between motivation,
metacognitive knowledge of learning strategies and listening comprehension of Iranian learners
of English. They found out that implementing strategies and MAI can lead to better
achievements. In the same manner, (Hairston, 1982) investigated the level of Iranian university
students’ metacognitive listening strategies awareness in learning English by administering
MALQ among university students of different majors. The overall result showed that more than
60% of the participants were fully or considerably aware of their metacognitive listening
strategies. It was also found that girls and boys were not different with regard to their general
metacognitive awareness of listening strategies. (Salehi y Farzad, 2003) investigated the
relationship between metacognitive knowledge, learning conception and learning English
among more than three hundred students. In order to carry out the research they used state
metacognition inventory which was developed and validated by (Rahimi y Katal, 2013),
learning conception interview based on Saljo’s study (1979), and a researcher-made English
language proficiency test. Results of the study revealed that there is a relationship between
metacognitive knowledge, learning conception and learning English.
References
Bereiter C. & Scardamalia M. (1987), The psychology of written composition. New Jersey,
USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown A. (1987), Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious
mechanisms, In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and
understanding, New Jersey, USA: Erlbaum.
Brown D. & Abeywickrama P. (2010), Language Assessment, Principles and Classroom
Practices. NY: Pearson.
Brown J. & Hudson T. (2003), Criterion-referenced Language Testing. London: Cambridge
Applied Linguistics.
Brown J. (2005), Testing in Language Programs, A comprehensive Guide to English Language
Programs. Singapore: McGraw Hill.
Corsale K. & Ornstein P. (1980), Developmental changes in children's use of semantic
information in recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30(5): 231-245.
De Bot K. & Lowie W. & Verspoor M. (2005), Second language acquisition: an advanced
resource book, New York; London: Routledge.
Deci E. & Koestner R. & Ryan R. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining
the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, Psychological Bulletin, 125(6):
Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios
2020: 10(4),189 - 202
ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)
ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)
199
627–668.
Deci E. & Ryan M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behaviour.
New York: Plenum.
Dornyei Z. (2001), Teaching and researching motivation, Harlow: Pearson Education, 15(3):
169-180.
Dörnyei Z. (2005), The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second
Language Acquisition. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,
Publishers, 17(3): 149-163.
Ehrman M. (1996) Understanding Second Language Difficulties. California, U.S.A: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Flavell J. (1979), Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist.
Flavell J. (1987), Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert
& R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding, Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fulcher G. & Davidson F. (2007), Language Testing and Assessment, an advanced resource
book. GB: Routledge.
Garner R. (1988), Metacognition and reading comprehension, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Gold D., Hobbs C. & Berlin J. (2012), , A short history of writing instruction: From ancient
Greece to contemporary America, New York: Routledge.
Hacker D. (2009), Definitions and empirical foundations, In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.
C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice, Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 4(1): 1–24.
Hairston M. (1982), The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of
writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(5): 76-88.
Hamp-Lyone L. (2000), Fairness in language testing, In Kunnan, A. J. (ed). Fairness and
validation in Language Assessment, Studies in Language Testing 9, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 4(3): 30-34.
Hartman H. (2001), Developing students’ metacognitive knowledge and skills. In H.J. Hartman
Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice, Boston:
Kluwer Academic.
Hayes J. & Flower L. (1980), Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg &
E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heaton J. (1988), Writing English Language Tests, Longman Handbook for Language
Teachers, London: Longman Group UK Ltd.
Hidi S. & Boscolo P. (2007), Writing and motivation, Oxford: Elsevier.
Hyland K. (2002), Teaching and researching writing, New York: Longman.
Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios
2020: 10(4),189 - 202
ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)
ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)
200
Jacobs J. & Paris S. (1987), Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition,
measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, (22): 225–278.
Johns A. (1990), L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2
composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the
classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17(4): 24–36.
Leaver B. & Ehrman M. & Shekhtman B. (2005), Achieving Success in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17(3): 149-163.
Mohanty S. (2007). Lifelong and adult education, New Delhi: Ashish Publishing House, 19(1):
311-320.
Nelson T. & Narens L. (1990), Metamemory: a theoretical framework and new findings. The
Psychology of Learning and Motivation, In G. Bower (Ed.); New York: Academic Press,
26(9): 125-173
Noels K. & Pelletier L. & Clement R. & Vallerland R. (2000), What are you learning a second
language? Orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50(1): 57-
85.
Noels K. (2009). The internalization of language learning into the self and social identity. In Z.
Dornyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the self, Bristol:
Multilinual Matters, 12(6): 295-313.
Öz H. (2005), Metacognition in foreign / second language learning and teaching, Hacettepe
University Journal of Education, 29(3):147-156.
Rahimi M. & Katal M. (2013), The impact of metacognitive instruction on EFL learners’
listening comprehension and oral language proficiency. Journal of Teaching Language
Skills, 5(2): 69–90.
Renee Payne A. (2007), Development of the Academic Writing Motivation Questionnaire,
(Master’s thesis), Unpublished Dissertation, University of Georgia, 19(5): 130-142.
Riding R. & Rayner S. (2000), Cognitive styles and learning strategies: understanding style
differences in learning and behaviour. London: David Fulton, 18(1): 78-100.
Salehi R. & Farzad V. (2003), The relationship between metacognitive knowledge, learning
conception and learning English, Journal of Psychology, 7(3): 270-286.
Schneider W. (1985), Developmental trends in the metamemory memory behavior relationship:
an integrative review. Metacognition, cognition, and human performance 1, New York:
Academic Press, 19(8): 78-99.
Schraw G. & Denison R. (1994), Assessing Metacognitive Awareness. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19(2): 460-475.
Schunk D. & Ertmer P. (1999), Self-regulatory processes during computer skill acquisition:
goal and self-evaluative influences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3): 251-260.
Sitko B. (1998), Knowing how to write: Metacognition and writing instruction, In D. J. Hacker,
Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios
2020: 10(4),189 - 202
ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)
ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)
201
J. Donlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice,
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 15(6): 93-115.
Skehan P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. London: Edward
Arnold.
Wong B. (1991), The conceptual perspectives in the connections between reading and writing
processes. In A. McKeough & J. L. Lupart (Eds.), Toward the practice of theory-based
instruction. Current cognitive theories (p. 66-93). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
19(1): 159-170.
Wu X. (2003), Intrinsic motivation and young learners: The impact of the classroom
environment. System, 23(1): 32-55.
Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios
2020: 10(4),189 - 202
ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)
ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)
202
