The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00886-7

REGULAR ARTICLE

Metacognitive Instruction for Improving the Effectiveness

of Collaborative Writing for EFL Learners’ Writing Development
Kaixuan Wang1 · Lawrence Jun Zhang1 ·
Maria Cooper1

Accepted: 23 June 2024

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract There has been substantial research on the effects Keywords Collaborative writing · Metacognition ·
of metacognitive instruction on improving L2 learners’ lan- Metacognitive instruction · EFL writing development ·
guage skills. However, little is known about the impact of Quasi-experiment
such instruction on improving the effectiveness of L2 stu-
dents’ collaborative writing. To fill this research gap, we
conducted a quasi-experimental study to investigate how Introduction
such an instructional programme would help Chinese EFL
learners’ writing development through collaborative writing. Writing has been conceptualised as a complex activity
A total of 62 post-graduate students from a university in invoking cognitive, metacognitive, linguistic, affective, and
central China were randomly allocated to either an experi- motivational processes (Graham, 2006; Hayes, 1996; Zhang,
mental group receiving three weeks of collaborative writing 2022). These processes are recursive in nature, whereby
interventions with metacognitive instruction for writing col- writers execute metacognitive monitoring in planning,
laboratively, or a control group that was taught via a genre- translating, and reviewing their writing process and product.
based approach. Pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed Such understanding highlights the significant role of meta-
post-tests were administered with both groups at the onset, cognition in each process of writing (Lee & Mak, 2018).
immediately after, and six weeks after the interventions to Further supported by Hacker et al. (2009), the significance
compare their change in writing production, specifically in of metacognition is manifested in the view that writing is
lexical complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Results revealed applied metacognition. Metacognition is usually understood
that the metacognitive instruction and collaborative writing as learners’ awareness and understanding of their own cog-
interventions helped improve participants’ writing perfor- nitive processes, enabling learners to monitor and regulate
mance in lexical variation, accuracy, and fluency. However, these processes in pursuit of a learning goal (Flavell, 1976).
no significant effects were observed in lexical density and Achieving academic success relies not only on what teach-
lexical sophistication. We discuss the results for their peda- ers and programmes offer them; it also depends on learners’
gogical and theoretical implications. development of metacognitive skills that can empower them
to manage or self-regulate their own learning (Anderson,
2005). Indeed, metacognition is essential in L2 learning and
* Lawrence Jun Zhang higher-order human cognitive processes, including writing
[email protected] in a foreign language (Flavell, 1979; Wenden, 1998; Xu,
Kaixuan Wang 2023). Although several scholars have established few cor-
[email protected] relations between metacognition and writing performance
Maria Cooper (Qin & Zhang, 2019; Teng et al., 2022; Teng & Zhang,
[email protected] 2016; Yang, 2014), studies investigating the impact of meta-
1 cognitive instruction on L2 writing remain insufficient. The
Faculty of Education and Social Work, University
of Auckland, 10 Symonds Street, Auckland 1010, mechanisms underpinning metacognitive instruction for L2
New Zealand

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 K. Wang et al.

writing development are not fully understood, especially in 1996), and the output hypothesis (Swain, 1993). From a
the context of collaborative writing. socio-cultural theoretical perspective, collaborative writing
Byrnes and Manchón (2014) regarded writing as a multi- is viewed as a pedagogical activity facilitative of language
faceted cognitive process involving various factors, such as learning, taking advantage of appropriate forms of support,
the learner, instructor, task, and available resources, all con- deliberating about languaging, and collective scaffolding
tributing to the complex meaning-creating process that holds during meaningful social interactions (Donato, 1994; Lan-
potential for L2 learning and development (Zhang, 2013, tolf & Thorne, 2006; Swain et al., 2009). From a cognitive
2021). Two factors that appear to have a significant impact perspective, the interaction within the collaborative writing
on the potential of writing for language learning and devel- process allows learners to participate in various activities,
opment are metacognitive instruction (Teng & Zhang, 2020; including negotiating meaning, providing and receiving
Xu, 2023) and collaborative writing (Li & Zhang, 2023; Li feedback, and engaging in “pushed output” where they are
et al., 2020). Recent studies have revealed that metacog- impelled to notice the gap between their current language
nitive instruction helped L2 writers improve their writing proficiency and the target language norms (Gass & Mackey,
performance, effective strategy use, learner autonomy, and 2007; Long, 1996; Pham, 2023). Research evidence sug-
transferring the learnt strategies effectively to other situa- gests that collaborative writing can potentially enhance L2
tions (Alfaifi, 2022; Forbes & Fisher, 2020; Nguyen & Gu, learning and writing development (Kim, 2008; McDonough
2013; Teng & Zhang, 2020). Collaborative writing, where & Fuentes, 2015; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009; Zhang &
multiple individuals work together to create a text with Plonsky, 2020). Numerous studies also indicate that the pairs
shared responsibility for the co-constructed products, has or group writers reported having positive experiences and
the potential to support L2 learning and writing development attitudes towards collaborative writing activities (Storch,
(Storch, 2011, 2019). It can also encourage learner interac- 2005; Fernández-Dobao, 2020).
tions and facilitate gap noticing, peer feedback, pushed out- When investigating the effects of collaborative writing
put, and languaging. Whilst writing collaboratively, learning on L2 writing development, scholars have either compared
is not confined to an individual’s efforts but becomes a social the texts written collaboratively with those produced indi-
endeavour that intertwines with the learning environment, vidually, or adopted a pre-test, and a post-test design with
tools, and overall context (Bueno-Alastuey et al., 2022). writing tasks to examine the impact of collaborative writ-
For decades, scholars have been seeking the development ing on subsequent individual writing (Khatib & Meihami,
of complexity, accuracy, and fluency measures of language 2015; Storch, 2005; Villarreal & Gil-Sarratea, 2020). Writ-
performance in response to specific instructions and stimuli ten texts were usually analysed using either established writ-
to understand the relationship between teaching and learning ing rubrics or assessments based on linguistic complexity,
in a more organic manner (Lu, 2010; Norris & Ortega, 2009; accuracy, and fluency. Differentiated results have been
Xu et al., 2023; Xu & Zhang, 2023). Amongst the limited reported when comparing the complexity, accuracy, and
number of studies investigating metacognitive instruction fluency writing performance of collaboratively written text
on L2 writing, few, to our knowledge, have explored the with that produced individually (Zhang & Plonsky, 2020).
effect of metacognitive instruction on the effectiveness of This suggests that one-short designs might fail to establish
collaborative writing in facilitating writing development. conclusive support for the theoretically presumed advantage
Therefore, this research intends to assess the feasibility of of collaborative writing, which drives researchers to investi-
incorporating explicit metacognitive instruction with col- gate further whether the impact of collaborative writing can
laborative writing interventions for L2 writing development endure over time and be observed consistently across vari-
in lexical complexity, accuracy, and fluency. ous writing experiences, especially on subsequent individual
writing (Elabdali, 2021).
Until recently, only a few scholars have investigated the
Literature Review effect of collaborative writing on subsequent individual
writing skills (Bueno-Alastuey et al., 2022; Chen, 2019;
Collaborative Writing and Writing Performance Khatib & Meihami, 2015; Shehadeh, 2011). Amongst the
scarce research, Bikowski & Vithanage (2016), and Khatib
In the L2 writing literature, collaborative writing is charac- & Meihami (2015) found that the benefits of collabora-
terised as an interactive and educational activity where two tive writing can be transferred into later individual writing
or more learners engage in the writing process to jointly cre- performance measured through writing rubrics, such as
ate a single text (Li & Zhang, 2023; Storch, 2019). Studies content, organisation, grammar, vocabulary, and mechan-
on collaborative writing have tended to be driven by social- ics. However, much research has reported that collabora-
cultural and cognitive perspectives, based on socio-cultural tive writing only improves the accuracy, and fluency scores
theory (Vygotsky, 1978), the interaction hypothesis (Long, of the participants’ individual writing, not the complexity

13
Metacognitive Instruction for Improving the Effectiveness of Collaborative Writing for EFL…

scores (Bueno-Alastuey et al., 2022; Chen, 2019). The rea- practitioners to take the initiative in training learners with
son was that participants focused on grammatical accuracy knowledge and regulation of metacognition, known as meta-
when engaging in the language learning opportunities (e.g. cognitive instruction (Lee & Mak, 2018; Xu, 2023).
“languaging”, peer feedback, language-related episodes on As early as 1986, Palincsar (1986) illustrated that meta-
vocabulary, grammar issues) whilst writing collaboratively. cognitive instruction, aiming to affect learners’ interactions
The inconsistent findings regarding the effects of collab- with learning, should go beyond letting students learn a rep-
orative writing as a pedagogical activity have encouraged ertoire of strategies. More significant is the learners’ abil-
scholars to investigate the factors that might mitigate the ity to select the best strategies that fit the learning targets,
learning outcomes by influencing the collaborative writing overcome challenges they may face, and align with their
process (Chen & Hapgood, 2021; Zhang, 2018). Under such capabilities and limitations. The learners also need to pos-
an initiation, the metacognitive approach offers a beneficial sess the capacity to monitor and regulate their strategy use
way to understand the link between collaborative writing and and evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies selected in
L2 learning (e.g. why some learners improve their L2 whilst achieving learning goals so that adjustments can be made in
others fail to) (Sato, 2023). This is because learners’ knowl- strategy selection for future learning tasks or situations (Pal-
edge of themselves as learners, the task they are engaged in, incsar, 1986). Effective metacognitive instruction improves
and the strategies available to them have a direct effect on self-regulation, allowing learners to “set goals for their
their engagement with the language learning opportunities learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate and control
during collaborative writing (Wenden, 2001; Teng & Zhang, their cognition” (Pintrich, 2000, p. 453). It is hypothesised
2024). This claim has been supported by Chen & Hapgood that metacognitive instruction has the potential to enhance
(2021), revealing that the knowledge of collaborative writ- learners’ higher-order thinking abilities, supporting cogni-
ing was positively correlated with the patterns of interac- tive processes in learning behaviours and achievement (Sato,
tion and languaging opportunities manifested in the writing 2023).
processes. Chen & Hapgood’s (2021) findings showed that
learners with more knowledge about collaborative writing Metacognitive Instruction and L2 Writing
revealed a collaborative pattern of interaction (high equal-
ity, high mutuality), a much higher number of language- Previous studies have indicated that metacognitive instruc-
related episodes, and self-resolving such language-related tions facilitate learners’ effective use of learning strategies,
episodes more frequently. Although their research suggests enhance learning outcomes, and cultivate their potential
a significant correlation between metacognitive knowledge to become more accomplished language learners (de Boer
of collaborative writing and the interaction process during et al., 2018; Ku & Ho, 2010; Xu, 2023; Zhang, 2010). As
writing collaboratively (participation and learning) (Chen scholars have advocated, metacognitive instruction neces-
& Hapggood, 2021), they did not examine the direct rela- sitates the interplay of various factors, encompassing the
tionship between the training of metacognitive knowledge teacher, learner, and tasks (Sato, 2023; Sato & Loewen,
of collaborative writing and the actual learning outcomes. 2018). This argument reiterates the suggestion that exploring
Following this line of research, several scholars have tried the potential synergies between metacognitive instruction
to investigate how metacognitive instruction in collaborative and collaborative writing is a valuable avenue for investiga-
writing might contribute to L2 writing development (Teng, tion (Zhang & Zhang, 2019).
2021; Teng & Huang, 2023). Before reviewing these studies, Although recent scholars have acknowledged the benefits
we explain what metacognitive instruction entails. of combining metacognitive instruction with collaborative
learning (Xu, 2023; Zhang & Zhang, 2018), several meta-
Metacognitive Instruction analyses reported divergent results when strategy instruction
was combined with group work (De Boer et al., 2014; Dig-
Metacognition is closely related to the process of self-reg- nath & Büttner, 2008). Dignath and Büttner (2008) reported
ulated learning, “an active, constructive process whereby that only secondary school students benefited from strategy
learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to instruction in collaborative learning situations, whilst pri-
monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, mary school students showed no gains from such combining
and behaviour, guided and constrained by their goals and practice. However, in another meta-analysis, De Boer et al.
the contextual features in the environment” (Pintrich, 2000, (2014) found that the cooperation group failed to show any
p. 453). Many struggling learners encounter challenges in superior benefits from strategy instruction compared to the
learning due to their lack of pertinent knowledge and skills group without cooperation.
which has hindered them from selecting relevant strategy In the context of L2 writing, much metacognitive instruc-
packages for effective self-regulation (Sato, 2023; Schraw & tion research has been conducted with learners in individual
Gutierrez, 2015). This drives scholars and foreign language writing conditions (Alfaifi, 2022; Forbes & Fisher, 2020).

13
 K. Wang et al.

Nevertheless, learners who possess metacognitive knowl- accuracy, and fluency. Metacognitive instruction was con-
edge in individual writing may encounter challenges when ducted with the method of metacognitive prompts, focusing
transitioning to collaborative writing, as they may lack the on metacognitive knowledge, and metacognitive regulations.
know-how to effectively engage in tasks such as incorporat- Results showed that participants benefited from metacogni-
ing and offering feedback, negotiating meaning and forms, tive instruction and collaborative writing conditions in writ-
and reaching agreements with peers to complete writing ing more accurately, with a null effect for complexity and
task during the collaborative writing process (Sato, 2023). fluency measures (Teng & Huang, 2023).
Both cognitive and metacognitive factors are essential in the However, it might be challenging to draw a firm con-
effectiveness of collaborative writing on L2 learning (Sato, clusion based on such a limited number of studies into the
2022; Zhang & Zhang, 2018). Metacognitively speaking, impacts of metacognitive instruction in collaborative writing
learners might actively engage in activities facilitative of on L2 writing development. Furthermore, the metacognitive
L2 development when they understand the benefits of col- training presented in those earlier studies, whether through
laborative writing. Whilst engaging in cognitive activities guidance or prompts, focused primarily on strategies tailored
during collaborative writing (e.g. processing input, offering for individual writing situations. This has led to concerns
and uptaking feedback, pushed output) has a direct effect that these approaches may not be suitable or effective in col-
on L2 learning, metacognitive processes such as planning, laborative writing contexts. This holds particularly true for
monitoring, and evaluation support those cognitive activi- Chinese EFL writers, who are well-acquainted with individ-
ties whilst writing collaboratively through metacognitive ual writing but possess limited experience or knowledge in
regulation (Sato, 2023). To maximise the effectiveness collaborative writing. However, an exception was Chen and
of collaborative writing in supporting L2 learning, Sato Hapgood (2019), which encompassed metacognitive instruc-
(2023) suggested that metacognitive instruction, designed tion with both metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive
in accordance with the three stages of planning, drafting, regulation of collaborative writing and was tailored for Chi-
and revising, can be offered to learners so that higher-order nese EFL learners, thus we adopted their training package
thinking can be triggered in supporting their engagement in in this research.
the cognitive process of collaborative writing. Considering the limited amount of research investigating
Previous attempts have been made to investigate the the combined effect of collaborative writing and metacog-
impact of metacognitive instruction on the effectiveness of nitive instruction, and the scarcity of research focusing on
collaborative writing for L2 writing development. These post-graduate students, we aim to investigate the impacts of
attempts focus on the knowledge of metacognition, and reg- metacognitive instruction on the effectiveness of collabora-
ulation of metacognition in L2 writing (Teng, 2021; Teng tive writing on a cohort of Chinese EFL post-graduate stu-
& Huang, 2023). For example, Teng (2021) examined the dents’ writing performance development assessed by lexical
effects of four different instructional combinations, meta- complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Accordingly, we address
cognitive guidance with collaborative writing, metacogni- the following research question: Does metacognitive instruc-
tive guidance without collaborative writing, collaborative tion for collaborative writing in conjunction with collabora-
writing without metacognitive guidance, and individual tive writing interventions facilitate Chinese post-graduate
writing, on Chinese EFL students’ academic writing skills students’ writing development in lexical complexity, accu-
development. Metacognitive guidance encompasses meta- racy, and fluency?
cognitive knowledge (knowledge of task, strategies, and
self) and metacognitive regulation (planning, monitoring,
and evaluation) for effective L2 writing. The study revealed Method
that collaborative writing with metacognitive guidance trig-
gered the participants to engage in higher levels of informa- Participants
tion processing, cultivate a more profound understanding
of metacognition, and monitor and reflect on their writing This study, conducted in China, highlights the challenges
processes, thus significantly improving their academic writ- faced by Chinese university teachers in teaching EFL writ-
ing skills over time. ing, emphasising difficulties arising from test-driven and
Teng and Huang (2023) further studied the effects of product-oriented pedagogical practices (Li et al., 2020;
metacognitive instruction and collaborative writing on Chi- Zhang et al., 2016). In this study, we recruited two classes
nese EFL learners’ writing performance under four instruc- of post-graduate students majoring in Arts from a university
tion types: metacognitive instruction with collaborative in central China through convenience sampling (Dörnyei,
writing, metacognitive instruction with individual writing, 2010). All participants signed written consent forms before
collaborative writing, and individual writing. Participants’ participating in this study. They were enrolled in the same
writing performance was measured by syntactic complexity, compulsory English course with the goal of enhancing their

13
Metacognitive Instruction for Improving the Effectiveness of Collaborative Writing for EFL…

overall English proficiency during this study. Although they Metacognitive Instruction for Collaborative Writing
were taught by the same instructor, a professor in Applied
Linguistics, their classes were held in separate classrooms We adopted the training package from Chen and Hapgood
at different time. According to the pre-test results, they were (2021) to familiarise participants with metacognitive knowl-
homogeneous in their written proficiency at the onset of this edge of collaborative writing, with the aim to cultivate their
study. The participants consisted of 21 male and 41 female metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulations,
students, ranging in age from 21 to 28, with an average age supporting the pairs to write in a collaborative relationship
of 23. These two classes were randomly assigned into either as reflected as a willingness to share ideas, respecting part-
an experimental group (N = 32) or a control group (N = 30). ner’s contributions, and taking equal turns (Storch, 2002,
To randomly allocate the two classes to different treatments, 2019). The training package includes materials illustrat-
we assigned each class a random number, either 1 or 2, and ing the definitions of collaborative writing, its benefits and
then distributed them to the respective conditions (1 for shortcomings (declarative knowledge), knowledge about
the experimental group, 2 for the control group) without how to implement collaborative writing and necessary steps
following any predetermined pattern or bias. Participants and skills for collaborative writing (procedural knowledge),
from the experimental group received explicit metacognitive and examples of successful collaborative writing (condi-
instruction and collaborative writing interventions, whilst tional knowledge). The training package intends to facilitate
the control group students were instructed according to the learners to understand the process of collaborative writing,
regular teaching schedule, following a genre-based approach the learning benefits of collaborative writing, and the skills
to writing. to maximise the learning benefits of collaborative writing.
For detailed information on the training materials, please see
Chen and Hapgood (2021). The instructional sessions and
Instruments
collaborative writing interventions occurred within the regu-
lar classroom schedule, whilst the control group received
Writing Materials for Collaborative Writing
normal instructions for an equivalent duration. This was
conducted to ensure that both groups had a similar amount
We provided participants in the experimental group with
of learning time. Based on the first author’s in-class observa-
three collaborative argumentative writing tasks to com-
tions, the control group received classes that incorporated
plete as part of in-class collaborative writing interventions.
model text analysis focusing on the structures and linguistic
The rationale for adopting the argumentative genre for the
characteristics of essays. Additionally, the teacher provided
interventions was that argumentative writing is a significant
various modal phrases and sentences tailored to each sec-
genre taught in the teaching syllabus and the textbook for the
tion of the essays. Participants in the control group did not
participants, as well as a prevalent writing proficiency test in
engage in any collaborative writing or cooperative work dur-
appearance in language tests for Chinese university students,
ing this study. They were only tasked with the pre-, post-,
both nationally and internationally (Huang & Zhang, 2020;
and delayed post-test writing as in-class practice.
Li & Zhang, 2022). Also, we believed that improving their
ability to write appropriate argumentative writing might
Procedure
enhance their motivation to participate in this study. Details
of the topics of the writing tasks can be found in Appendix I.
Before data collection, participants were provided with
detailed information about the study’s purpose and pro-
Pre‑, Post‑, and Delayed‑ Post‑tests of Writing cedures, and signed consent forms were obtained. Subse-
quently, they were randomly allocated to either the experi-
In order to assess the progression in the writing performance mental or control group. To ensure fairness in the teacher’s
of the participants following the interventions, three argu- attitude towards the experimental and control groups, the
mentative writing tests were incorporated, and adapted from first author received assurance from the classroom teacher
the IELTS writing examinations. The topics of the three tests that she would hold a position of neutrality towards both
were purposefully selected in accordance with the teaching groups. At the onset of the study, both groups underwent
schedules. They were piloted on a group of non-participants a pre-test writing session. The first author of this research
with similar demographical information to the participants also met with the instructor to train her to familiarise her
in this study to ensure that the three tests were similar in with the process of metacognitive instruction. Participants
their difficulty level. The tests were administered in a tradi- in the experimental group were then instructed to self-select
tional paper-and-pen format, adhering to the 40-min dura- pairs for collaborative writing and were given the option
tion allocated to test-takers in official IELTS tests. Appendix to change partners if necessary. Prior to the in-class train-
II provides the topics for the three tests. ing and practice session, participants were given a training

13
 K. Wang et al.

package to review at home. Similarly, participants in the as the number of words written since the participants were
control group were tasked with completing standard home- required to write for the same amount of time. We coded
work assignments and reading articles from the textbook the errors based on Polio and Shea’s (2014) guidelines. To
slated for study in the following week. The 2-hour training ensure the reliability of the coding, another coder, a PhD
session commenced with a detailed discussion, led by the student from the same faculty majoring in Applied Lin-
instructor, of the collaborative writing concepts outlined in guistics, was invited. At the beginning, the coder and the
the provided reading materials. Following this discussion, first author collaboratively coded five texts to identify and
participants practised collaborative writing under the guid- address any discrepancies in their coding approaches, before
ance of the instructor, who circulated the classroom, offering they independently coded about 20% of the writing. The
support and encouragement to the pairs to work in a collabo- intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to calculate
rative manner. After the training session, the experimental the interrater reliability of the coding. The results revealed
group engaged in three collaborative writing interventions an acceptable inter-coder reliability of .82. Then, the first
over three weeks. These interventions involved collaborative author coded the rest of the written texts.
composition of three argumentative essays on topics selected Before delving into the primary statistical analysis regard-
by participants amongst several candidate topics relevant ing the within and between-group effects of the two groups,
to the teaching materials in the textbook. After assigning assessments were conducted to verify assumptions related to
the collaborative writing tasks, the instructor refrained from normality, the presence of outliers, and missing data. Sub-
intervening in the process, stepping in only when students sequently, mixed within-between subject ANOVAs were
requested assistance. In contrast, the control group received performed, followed by within-subject and between-subject
normal instructions with a genre-based approach during simple effect analyses.
both the training and intervention periods, and did not par-
ticipate in any collaborative assignments. Immediately after
the interventions, both groups completed a post-test writing
Results
session. Additionally, a delayed post-test was administered
to both groups six weeks after the interventions concluded.
Lexical Complexity
Data Analysis
Table 1 illustrates the descriptive statistics for the lexi-
cal complexity scores in each group across the three tests.
The pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test writing per-
These statistics reveal that both groups’ participants seemed
formance were analysed from the dimensions of lexical
to exhibit slight enhancements in lexical density, lexical
complexity, accuracy, and fluency. These metrics have been
sophistication, and lexical variation performance. Further
utilised to explore written and oral language performance,
details of the inferential statistical analysis results can be
language proficiency, and language development in L2
found in the following sections.
learners (Bulté & Housen, 2014; Housen & Kuiken, 2009;
Xu et al., 2023).
Lexical complexity refers to the sophistication and diver- Lexical Density
sity of vocabulary employed by L2 learners in communi-
cations (Lu, 2012). It encompasses lexical density, lexical Mixed ANOVA results on the lexical density performance
sophistication, and lexical variation. Lexical density was showed a significant main effect of time, F (2, 59) = 16.815,
assessed by number of lexical words to the total number of p < .001, Partial η2 = .363, but no significant main effect
words (Nlex/N). Lexical sophistication was assessed by the of group, F (1, 60) = .141, p = .709, Partial η2 = .002, and
number of sophisticated lexical words to the total number no significant interaction effect between the time × group,
of lexical words (Nslex/Nlex). Lexical variation was assessed F (2, 59) = .191, p = .827, Partial η2 = .006. Further pair-
through the corrected type token ratio (CTTR). We adopted wise analysis revealed that participants from both groups
the automatic computer software, L2 Lexical Complexity improved their lexical density performance across time, and
Analyser, for lexical complexity analysis (Lu, 2012). the results were maintained in the delayed post-test (experi-
Accuracy refers to the extent to which the language pro- mental group: pre- vs. post-test, p < .05; pre- vs. delayed
duced aligns with the native-like norms established in the post-test, p < .05; post- vs. delayed post-test, p > .05. control
target language (Pallotti, 2009). Fluency refers to the extent group: pre- vs. post-test, p < .001; pre- vs. delayed post-test,
to which a learner demonstrates his/her ability to produce p < .05; post- vs. delayed post-test, p > .05). Between-sub-
language in a fast and smooth manner without interruption ject comparison revealed that the two groups showed simi-
(Pallotti, 2021). Accuracy was operationalised as the ratio lar performance in the pre-test (p > .05), post-test (p > .05),
of error-free clauses (EFC/C), whilst fluency operationalised and delayed post-test (p > .05). We can see that both the

13
Metacognitive Instruction for Improving the Effectiveness of Collaborative Writing for EFL…

Table 1  Descriptive statistics Lexical complexity Group N Pre-test Post-test Delayed post-
of lexical complexity test
M SD M SD M SD

lexical density (Nlex/N) EG 32 .514 .039 .544 .029 .533 .032

CG 30 .513 .041 .550 .033 .534 .027
lexical sophistication (Nslex/Nlex) EG 32 .116 .050 .160 .040 .224 .045
CG 30 .102 .033 .146 .041 .210 .048
lexical variation (CTTR) EG 32 4.700 .449 5.250 .536 5.333 .338
CG 30 4.782 .463 4.905 .346 4.979 .454

EG experimental group, CG control group, Nlex/N number of lexical words to the total number of words,
Nslex/Nlex number of sophisticated lexical words to the total number of lexical words, CTTR​ corrected type
token ratio

interventions and normal instructions help improve partici- mixed-design ANOVA results for the lexical variation per-
pants’ lexical density performance. formance. Further pairwise analysis revealed that only the
experimental group participants improved their lexical vari-
Lexical Sophistication ation performance across time (pre- vs. post-test, p < .001;
pre- vs. delayed post-test, p < .001), and the results were
Mixed-design ANOVA results for the lexical sophistication retained in the delayed post-test (post- vs. delayed post-test,
performance showed that there was a significant main effect p > .05), whilst lexical variance performance for the control
of time, F (2, 59) = 103.966, p < .001, Partial η2 = .779, group participants remained stable across three tests (pre-
but no significant main effect of group, F (1, 60) = 4.012, vs. post-test, p > .05; pre- vs. delayed post-test, p > .05).
p = .050, Partial η2 = .063, and no significant interaction Between-subject comparison revealed that the two groups
effect between the time × group, F (2, 59) = .001, p = .999, showed similar lexical variation performance at the onset
Partial η2 = .001. Further pairwise analysis revealed that of the study (p > .05), however, after the intervention, the
both groups benefit from consistently improving their lexi- participants from the experimental group exhibited signifi-
cal sophistication performance (experimental group: pre- vs. cantly better results than their counterparts from the con-
post-test, p < .001; pre- vs. delayed post-test, p < .001; post- trol group in the post-test, p = .015 with small effect size,
vs. delayed post-test, p < .001. control group: pre- vs. post- Cohen’s d = .454, but not in the delayed post-test, p > .05.
test, p < .001; pre- vs. delayed post-test, p < .001; post- vs.
delayed post-test, p < .001). No significant difference was Accuracy
detected in the lexical sophistication performance in pre-test
(p > .05), post-test (p > .05), and delayed post-test (p > .05) Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics for the writing test
for the two groups. accuracy scores within each group across the three tests.
These statistics underscore that the participants from both
Lexical Variation groups seemed to have slight improvements in the accuracy
scores. Additional details concerning the results of the infer-
A significant main effect of time, F (2, 59) = 19.042, ential statistical analysis are elaborated upon in the following
p < .001, Partial η 2 = .392, a significant main effect of sections.
group, F (1, 60) = 7.166, p = .010, Partial η2 = .107, and a Mixed-design ANOVA results for the accuracy per-
significant interaction effect between the time × group, F (2, formance showed a significant main effect of time, F (2,
59) = 5.679, p = .006, Partial η2 = .161 were revealed in the 59) = 11.451, p < .001, Partial η2 = .280, and a significant

Table 2  Descriptive statistics Accuracy Group N Pre-test Post-test Delayed post-

of accuracy test
M SD M SD M SD

EFC/C EG 32 .648 .180 .752 .109 .817 .088

CG 30 .619 .199 .738 .132 .716 .170

EG experimental group, CG control group, EFC/C number of error-free clauses to total number of clauses

13
 K. Wang et al.

main effect of group, F (1, 60) = 4.658, p = .035, Partial in their fluency performance, p > .05. However, after the
η2 = .072, but a non-significant interaction effect between the interventions, experimental group participants showed better
time × group, F (2, 59) = 2.395, p = .100, Partial η2 = .075. fluency performance in the post-test, p = .001, with a large
Further pairwise analysis revealed that participants from the effect size, Cohen’s d = 35.545, but not in the delayed post-
experimental group consistently improved their accuracy test, compared to their counterparts in the control group.
performance in the post-test, and the delayed post-test (pre-
vs. post-test, p < .05; pre- vs. delayed post-test, p < .001;
post- vs. delayed post-test, p < .05), whilst control group par- Discussion
ticipants’ accuracy performance remained stable across three
test times (pre- vs. post-test, p > .05; pre- vs. delayed post- This study set out to examine the impact of metacogni-
test, p > .05). Between-group analysis revealed that at the tive instruction for collaborative writing on enhancing the
onset of the study, participants were similar in their accuracy effectiveness of three weeks of collaborative writing inter-
performance (p > .05), and the same results were found in ventions. Results showed that Chinese EFL learners sig-
the post-test (p > .05) after the interventions. It is interesting nificantly improved their lexical variation, accuracy, and
to figure out that experimental group participants had better fluency performance following the collaborative writing
accuracy performance in the delayed post-test compared to interventions with metacognitive instruction. This section
their counterparts from the control, p < .001, with a small discusses these results whilst offering possible explanations
effect size, Cohen’s d = .134. by referring to prior literature.

Fluency Lexical Complexity

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for the writing flu- The results showed that the combination of metacognitive
ency scores within each group across the three tests. These instruction and collaborative writing resulted in a significant
statistics highlight that the participants from the experimen- benefit in improving participants’ lexical variation perfor-
tal group demonstrated marginal improvements in fluency mance after the intervention, and the results were retained.
scores, whereas the participants from the control group Participants from the experimental group exhibited signifi-
maintained relatively consistent scores. Further elaboration cantly better results than their control group counterparts in
on the results from the inferential statistical analysis is pro- the post-test, although with a limited effect size. The signifi-
vided in the subsequent sections. cant improvement in the lexical variation performance might
Mixed design ANOVA revealed that there was a signifi- have resulted from the participants’ successful incorporation
cant main effect of time, F (2, 59) = 10.264, p < .001, Partial of the learning opportunities, resolved language-related epi-
η2 = .258, and a significant interaction effect between the sodes, and processing and offering feedback (Sato, 2023).
time × group, F (2, 59) = 3.951, p = .025, Partial η2 = .118, Such learning opportunities might have been promoted for
but no significant main effect of group, F (1, 60) = 2.627, our participants from the experimental group, inspired by
p = .110, Partial η2 = .042 for the participants’ fluency per- metacognition about collaborative writing. As Chen and
formance. Further pairwise analysis revealed that the inter- Hapgood (2021) highlighted, learners who believe in the
ventions helped improve experimental group participants’ benefits of writing collaboratively to enhance language
fluency performance across time (pre- vs. post-test, p < .05; learning, might reveal more engagement and participation
pre- vs. delayed post-test, p < .001), and the results were with collaborative writing. EFL learners actively participat-
maintained (post- vs. delayed post-test, p > .05). However, ing in collaborative writing may experience advantages in
control group participants failed to show any significant var- constructing diverse perspectives, and talking about incorpo-
iations in their fluency performance across three test time rating a more varied and precise range of language choices.
(pre- vs. post-test, p > .05; pre- vs. delayed post-test, p > .05). Such talk may have enhanced their linguistic skills and
Between-subject comparison results showed that prior to the contributed to a more nuanced and sophisticated expression
interventions, students in the two groups were quite similar of ideas (Li & Zhang, 2022). They might also have gained

Table 3  Descriptive statistics Fluency Group N Pre-test Post-test Delayed post-test

of fluency
M SD M SD M SD

Number of words EG 32 183.910 47.080 219.720 44.236 225.630 30.294

CG 30 191.100 34.586 205.130 22.853 200.670 26.732

EG experimental group, CG control group

13
Metacognitive Instruction for Improving the Effectiveness of Collaborative Writing for EFL…

insights from peer conversations regarding word selection, Fluency

encouraging the exploration of alternative terms. These
interactions contribute to their capacity to acquire an exten- Our results showed that collaborative writing and metacog-
sive vocabulary for expressing meanings and internalise nitive instructions had sustainable benefits in enhancing
lexical knowledge, ultimately supporting their independent participants’ fluency performance compared with normal
writing endeavours. instructions. Participants in the experimental group demon-
Our results showed that both interventions and normal strated enhanced fluency performance in the post-test, char-
instructions had a positive impact on participants’ lexical acterised by a large effect size, as opposed to their counter-
density and lexical sophistication performance, and these parts in the control group. However, this advantage did not
improvements were sustained in the delayed post-test. Sur- persist in the delayed post-test.
prisingly, collaborative writing interventions, coupled with Our results contradicted several previous studies showing
metacognitive instructions, did not demonstrate any discern- that collaborative writing products tend to be less fluent than
ible advantage over normal instructions in enhancing partici- individual writing counterparts (Storch, 2005; Zabihi et al.,
pants’ lexical density and sophistication performance. Such 2013). However, these results were refuted by Pham (2021),
results can be explained by the topics selected for the writing who revealed that collaborative writing could help learners
tests, which were closely related to their textbook’s writing write more words within a given amount of time. The sus-
topic. The English course they were enrolled in intended tainable development of participants’ writing fluency scores
to improve their comprehensive English ability through lis- in our study also echoes Schuster et al. (2020), revealing
tening, reading, speaking, and writing about several topics, that metacognitive instruction for collaborative writing can
revealed in several units. Consequently, exposure to such facilitate the effective transfer of metacognitive strategies in
topics in English might have enhanced all participants’ lexi- near and far contexts. It reveals that learner self-regulation
cal repertoire, which may have resulted in their improvement can be instructed and transferred to future tasks for enhanced
in lexical density, and lexical sophistication performance. task performance (Schuster et al., 2020). Our results seem
to support that training learners to write collaboratively
Accuracy before collaborative writing interventions could improve
their engagement and peer interactions with more chances
Participants benefited from metacognitive instructions and of language use, idea sharing, and equal contributions, thus
collaborative writing in improving their accuracy perfor- enhancing their ability to think of more illustrations with
mance in the post-test and the delayed post-test, whilst strong arguments (Zabihi & Bayan, 2020).
normal instruction participants’ accuracy performance
remained stable. The sustainable improvement in our par-
ticipants’ writing accuracy performance is without surprise Conclusion
to our knowledge that a large sum of literature has shown
that either metacognitive instruction or collaborative writing The present study was designed to investigate the impact of
helps learners write more accurate sentences for commu- metacognitive instruction for collaborative writing in con-
nication (Chen, 2019; Pham, 2023). We align with earlier junction with collaborative writing interventions on Chinese
collaborative writing research, where the collective advan- EFL learners’ individual writing development. The results
tages of written performance by pairs compare with those of indicate that offering participants collaborative writing inter-
individually authored pieces (Zhang & Plonsky, 2020). We ventions alongside metacognitive instruction on writing
also support findings indicating the benefits of collaborative collaboratively significantly improved their later individual
writing on subsequent individual writing accuracy perfor- written performance.
mance (Bueno-Alastuey et al., 2022; Chen, 2019). We are This research offers several pedagogical and theoretical
also in line with the idea that writing collaboratively ena- implications. Pedagogically, the results of this study will
bles participants to co-construct knowledge and deliberate be relevant to EFL teachers in that integrating metacogni-
on their language use collaboratively, facilitating noticing of tive training into collaborative writing can be a valuable
form, thus writing more grammatically accurate sentences and essential component for teaching practitioners who
(Li & Zhang, 2021a, 2021b; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2012). aim to incorporate collaborative writing as a pedagogical
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that participants in the experi- approach in writing classrooms. Specifically, the current
mental group exhibited superior accuracy performance in data highlights the significance of metacognitive instruc-
the delayed post-test compared to their counterparts in the tion for collaborative writing as beneficial in enhancing
control group, albeit with a small effect size. This suggests the effectiveness of collaborative writing in improving
that the benefits derived from the experimental group’s inter- later individual writing performance. Participants engaged
ventions can endure for a more extended period. in such pedagogical practice have significantly improved

13
 K. Wang et al.

their writing performance in terms of complexity, accu- doctoral scholarship awarded to Kaixuan Wang by The University of
racy, and fluency. Compared with previous studies, Auckland and the China Scholarship Council, Ministry of Education
of China (Grant No. UOA/CSC202108250015).
where only several dimensions of such metrics have been
improved (Chen, 2019; Teng & Huang, 2023), our results Data availability All data generated or analysed during this study
are promising as they support the idea that learners with are included in this published article and its supplementary informa-
metacognitive awareness can effectively attend to multi- tion file.
ple dimensions of their writing performance during col-
Declarations
laborative writing. This emphasises the need for teachers
to combine metacognitive instruction with collaborative
Conflict of interests There is no conflict of interests in this study.
writing, as suggested by Xu (2023), and Zhang and Zhang
(2018), in harnessing the full potential of collaborative Ethical Approval Research ethics approval was obtained by the
writing for writing development. Theoretically, this study Institutional Review Board of The University of Auckland.
contributes to our understanding of collaborative writing
activities as effective pedagogical practices from a meta-
cognitive perspective. Exploring metacognitive instruc-
tion and collaborative writing adds to our understanding Appendix I
of cognitive processes, metacognitive regulations, and
the complex dynamics inherent in writing collaboratively Writing Topics for Collaborative Writing Interventions
(Sato, 2023). The results carry substantial weight in bol-
stering the metacognitive perspective of collaborative Topic A
writing, thereby encouraging further investigations of the
metacognitive processes integral to collaborative writing, Some people believe that the main aim of university edu-
and the metacognitive mechanisms underlying L2 learning cation is to help students get better jobs. Do you agree or
achievement. This aligns with the observation of Zhang disagree?
and Zhang (2019), who noted the mission of cultivating
“lifelong learners, who are eager to show responsibilities”
Topic B
(p. 894) in L2 education.
Our study is also subject to several limitations, such
Nowadays, environmental problems are too big to be man-
as short intervention duration, lack of deep analysis of
aged by individual persons or individual countries. In other
the collaborative writing process, and small sample size.
words, it is an international problem. Do you agree or
Additionally, this study did not explore how metacognitive
disagree?
instruction and collaborative writing might have influenced
participants’ metacognitive knowledge about collaborative
writing, their understanding of collaborative writing, and Topic C
their writing behaviours. Another limitation of this study lies
in the absence of a collaborative writing only group, or an When you are driving a car, talking on a cell phone (not
individual writing only group. However, considering that the hands-free) may cause accidents. Do you agree or disagree?
learning gains of the experimental group surpass those of the
control group, we believe that the instructional programme
encompassing collaborative writing interventions with
metacognitive instruction can be beneficial for L2 writing Appendix II
development. We hope that researchers and foreign language
teachers continue to explore the potential of metacognitive Writing Prompts for Pre‑test, Post‑test, and Delayed
instruction and collaborative writing, taking advantage of Post‑test
the development of new technologies, like the synchronous
and asynchronous writing tools to monitor participants’ Prompt A
metacognitive processes involved during collaborative writ-
ing, and how such metacognitive mechanisms contribute to Some people believe that allowing children to make their
the final L2 attainment (Almalki & Storch, 2023). own choices on everyday matters (such as food, clothes, and
entertainment) is likely to result in a society of individu-
als who only think about their own wishes. Other people
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and believe that it is important for children to make decisions
its Member Institutions. This research received grants from a joint

13
Metacognitive Instruction for Improving the Effectiveness of Collaborative Writing for EFL…

about matters that affect them. Discuss both these views and Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
give your opinion. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning
(pp. 757–771). Routledge.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant Bikowski, D., & Vithanage, R. I. (2016). Effects of web-based collabo-
examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write rative writing on individual L2 writing development. Language
at least 250 words. Learning & Technology, 20(1), 79–99.
de Boer, H., Donker, A. S., Kostons, D. D., & van der Werf, G. P.
(2018). Long-term effects of metacognitive strategy instruction
Prompt B on student academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational
Research Review, 24, 98–115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​edurev.​
Many people believe that music is just a form of entertain- 2018.​03.​002
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C., Vasseur, R., & Elola, I. (2022). Effects of
ment, whilst others believe that music has a much larger collaborative writing and peer feedback on Spanish as a foreign
impact on society today. Discuss both these views and give language writing performance. Foreign Language Annals, 55(2),
your opinion. 517–539. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​flan.​12611
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-
term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Lan‑
examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write guage Writing, 26, 42–65. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jslw.​2014.​09.​
at least 250 words. 005
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.). (2014). Task-based language
learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. John Benjamins.
Prompt C
Chen, W. (2019). An exploratory study on the role of L2 collabo-
rative writing on learners’ subsequent individually composed
Some people think that the internet has brought people texts. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(6), 563–573.
closer together, whilst others think that people and commu- https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40299-​019-​00455-3
Chen, W., & Hapgood, S. (2021). Understanding knowledge, partici-
nities are becoming more isolated. Discuss both these views
pation and learning in L2 collaborative writing: A metacogni-
and give your opinion. tive theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 25(2),
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant 256–281. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​13621​68819​837560
examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write De Boer, H., Donker, A. S., & van der Werf, M. P. C. (2014). Effects
of the attributes of educational interventions on students’ aca-
at least 250 words.
demic performance: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 84(4), 509–545. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3102/​00346​54314​
540006
Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-reg-
ulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention
studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and
Learning, 3, 231–264. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 11409-0​ 08-9​ 029-x
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap- University Press.
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learn-
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, ing. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes second language research (pp. 33–56). Ablex.
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are Elabdali, R. (2021). Are two heads really better than one? A meta-
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated analysis of the L2 learning benefits of collaborative writing. Jour‑
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in nal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100788. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not 1016/j.​jslw.​2020.​100788
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Fernández-Dobao, A. (2020). Collaborative writing in mixed classes:
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a What do heritage and second language learners think? Foreign
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Language Annals, 53(1), 48–68. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​flan.​
12446
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In
L. R. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235).
References Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new
Alfaifi, M. J. (2022). A suggested model for metacognitive strategy area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist,
instruction in EFL writing classrooms. Reading & Writing Quar‑ 34(10), 906–911. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0003-​066x.​34.​10.​906
terly, 38(4), 323–339. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10573​569.​2021.​ Forbes, K., & Fisher, L. (2020). Strategy development and cross-
19545​69 linguistic transfer in foreign and first language writing. Applied
Almalki, H., & Storch, N. (2023). Online collaborative L2 writing: Linguistics Review, 11(2), 311–339. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1515/​appli​
Using synchronous and asynchronous tools with Arabic as a sec- rev-​2018-​0008
ond language learners. In M. Li & M. Zhang (Eds.), L2 collabo‑ Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output in SLA. In
rative writing in diverse learning contexts (pp. 130–154). John B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language
Benjamins. acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–199). Lawrence Erlbaum.

13
 K. Wang et al.

Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), McDonough, K., & Fuentes, C. G. (2015). The effect of writing task
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Lawrence and task conditions on Colombian EFL learners’ language use.
Erlbaum. TESL Canada Journal, 32(2), 67–79. https://​doi.​org/​10.​18806/​
Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2009). Writing is applied tesl.​v32i2.​1208
metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser Nguyen, L. T. C., & Gu, Y. (2013). Strategy-based instruction: A
(Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 154–172). learner-focused approach to developing learner autonomy. Lan‑
Routledge. guage Teaching Research, 17(1), 9–30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and 13621​68812​457528
affect in writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to
writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applica‑ investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity.
tions (pp. 1–27). Lawrence Erbaum. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in applin/​amp044
second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. Palincsar, A. S. (1986). Metacognitive strategy instruction. Excep‑
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​applin/​amp048 tional Children, 53(2), 118–124. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00144​
Huang, Y., & Zhang, L. J. (2020). Does a process-genre approach help 02986​05300​203
improve students’ argumentative writing in English as a foreign Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating con-
language? Findings from an intervention study. Reading & Writ‑ structs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
ing Quarterly, 36(4), 339–364. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 080/1​ 05735​ 69.​ 1093/​applin/​amp045
2019.​16492​23 Pallotti, G. (2021). Measuring complexity, accuracy, and fluency
Khatib, M., & Meihami, H. (2015). Languaging and writing skill: (CAF). In P. Winke & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge hand‑
The effect of collaborative writing on EFL students’ writing book of second language acquisition and language testing (pp.
performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(1), 201–210). Routledge.
203–211. Pham, V. P. H. (2021). The effects of collaborative writing on students’
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks writing fluency: An efficient framework for collaborative writing.
to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Modern Language Jour‑ SAGE Open, 11(1), 2158244021998363. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
nal, 92(1), 114–130. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​4781.​2008.​ 21582​44021​998363
00690.x Pham, V. P. H. (2023). The impacts of collaborative writing on indi-
Ku, K. Y. L., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Metacognitive strategies that enhance vidual writing skills. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 52(4),
critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5(3), 251–267. 1221–1236. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10936-​023-​09939-2
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11409-​010-​9060-6 Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
of second language development. Oxford University Press. Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). Academic Press.
Lee, I., & Mak, P. (2018). Metacognition and metacognitive instruction Polio, C., & Shea, M. C. (2014). An investigation into current meas-
in second language writing classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), ures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research.
1085–1097. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tesq.​436 Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10–27. https://​doi.​org/​
Li, H. H., & Zhang, L. J. (2021a). Effects of structured small-group 10.​1016/j.​jslw.​2014.​09.​003
student talk as collaborative prewriting discussions on Chinese Qin, L. T., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). English as a foreign language writ-
university EFL students’ individual writing: A quasi-experimental ers’ metacognitive strategy knowledge of writing and their writ-
study. PLoS One, 16(5), e0251569. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​ ing performance in multimedia environments. Journal of Writing
al.​pone.​02515​69 Research, 11(2), 393–413. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17239/​jowr-​2019.​
Li, M., & Zhang, M. (2021b). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: 11.​02.​06
A research agenda. Language Teaching, 56(1), 1–19. https://​doi.​ Sato, M. (2022). Metacognition. In S. Li, P. Hiver, & M. Papi (Eds.),
org/​10.​1017/​s0261​44482​10003​18 The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and indi‑
Li, H. H., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Investigating effects of small-group vidual differences (pp. 95–110). Routledge.
student talk on the quality of argument in Chinese tertiary English Sato, M. (2023). Metacognitive approaches to collaborative writing:
as a foreign language learners’ argumentative writing. Frontiers Theoretical and pedagogical proposals. In M. Li & M. Zhang
in Psychology, 13, 868045. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2022.​ (Eds.), L2 collaborative writing in diverse learning contexts (pp.
868045 32–52). John Benjamins.
Li, M., & Zhang, M. (2023). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the
A research agenda. Language Teaching, 56(1), 94–112. https://​ effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback
doi.​org/​10.​1017/​s0261​44482​10003​18 types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68(2), 507–545.
Li, H. H., Zhang, L. J., & Parr, J. M. (2020). Small-group student talk https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​lang.​12283
before individual writing in tertiary English writing classrooms in Schraw, G., & Gutierrez, A. P. (2015). Metacognitive strategy instruc-
China: nature and insights. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 570565. tion that highlights the role of monitoring and control processes.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2020.​570565 In A. Peña-Ayala (Ed.), Metacognition: Fundaments, applications,
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in sec- and trends (pp. 3–16). Intelligent Systems Reference Library.
ond language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Schuster, C., Stebner, F., Leutner, D., & Wirth, J. (2020). Transfer of
Handbook of language acquisition: Second language acquisition metacognitive skills in self-regulated learning: An experimen-
(pp. 413–468). Academic Press. tal training study. Metacognition and Learning, 15(3), 455–477.
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11409-​020-​09237-5
language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collabora-
15(4), 474–496. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1075/​ijcl.​15.4.​02lu tive writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4),
Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of 286–305. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jslw.​2011.​05.​010
ESL learners’ oral narratives. Modern Language Journal, 96(2), Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language
190–208. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​4781.​2011.​01232_1.x learning, 52(1), 119–158. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1467-​9922.​
00179

13
Metacognitive Instruction for Improving the Effectiveness of Collaborative Writing for EFL…

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and stu- Xu, T. S., Zhang, L. J., & Gaffney, J. S. (2023). A multidimensional
dents’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), approach to assessing the effects of task complexity on L2 stu-
153–173. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jslw.​2005.​05.​002 dents’ argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 55, 100690.
Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, out- https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​asw.​2022.​100690
comes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguis‑ Xu, Z. (2023). Metacognition in language teaching and research: A
tics, 31, 275–288. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​s0267​19051​10000​79 conversation with Professor Lawrence Jun Zhang. RELC Journal,
Storch, N. (2019). Collaborative writing. Language Teaching, 52(1), 54(1), 300–308. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00336​88223​11574​97
40–59. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​s0261​44481​80003​20 Yang, H. C. (2014). Toward a model of strategies and summary writing
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing performance. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(4), 403–431.
aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158– https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15434​303.​2014.​957381
164. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3138/​cmlr.​50.1.​158 Zabihi, R., & Bayan, M. (2020). Are two voices better than one? Com-
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). paring aspects of text quality and authorial voice in paired and
Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of independent L2 writing. Written Communication, 37(4), 512–535.
voice in French. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 5–29. https://​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​07410​88320​939542
doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​4781.​2009.​00825.x Zabihi, R., Rezazadeh, M., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2013). Creativity and
Teng, M. F. (2021). The effectiveness of incorporating metacognitive narrative writing in L2 classrooms: Comparing individual and
prompts in collaborative writing on academic English writing paired task performance. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learn‑
skills. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(3), 659–673. https://​ ing Languages & Literature, 6(3), 29–46. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.5​ 565/​
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​acp.​3789 rev/​jtl3.​481
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation Zhang, D., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). Metacognition and self-regulated
of multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. learning (SRL) in second/foreign language teaching. In X. Gao
Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 674–701. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp. 883–
1111/​modl.​12339 897). Springer.
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2020). Empowering learners in the sec- Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of
ond/foreign language classroom: Can self-regulated learning Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL reading.
strategies-based writing instruction make a difference? Journal of TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 320–353. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5054/​tq.​
Second Language Writing, 48, 100701. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ 2010.​223352
jslw.​2019.​100701 Zhang, L. J. (2013). Second language writing as and for second lan-
Teng, M. F., & Huang, J. (2023). The effects of incorporating metacog- guage learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(4),
nitive strategies instruction into collaborative writing on writing 446–447. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jslw.​2013.​08.​010
complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Asia Pacific Journal of Educa‑ Zhang, M. (2018). Collaborative writing in the EFL classroom: The
tion, 43(4), 1071–1090. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02188​791.​2021.​ effects of L1 and L2 use. System, 76, 1–12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
19826​75 1016/j.​system.​2018.​04.​009
Teng, M. F., Wang, C., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Assessing self-regula- Zhang, L. J. (2021). Crossing literacy borders through writing: Trans-
tory writing strategies and their predictive effects on young EFL formational apprenticeship and repositioning of English-as-an-
learners’ writing performance. Assessing Writing, 51, 100573. additional-language learners. In A. Golden, L. Kulbrandstad, & L.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​asw.​2021.​100573 J. Zhang (Eds.), Crossing borders, writing texts, being evaluated:
Teng, M. F., & Zhang, L. J. (2024). Ethnic minority multilingual young Cultural and interdisciplinary norms in academic writing (pp.
learners’ longitudinal development of metacognitive knowledge 210–226). Multilingual Matters.
and breadth of vocabulary knowledge. Metacognition Learning, Zhang, L. J. (2022). L2 writing: Toward a theory-practice praxis. In E.
19, 123–146. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11409-​023-​09360-z Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of practical second language teaching
Villarreal, I., & Gil-Sarratea, N. (2020). The effect of collabora- and learning (pp. 331–343). Routledge. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4324/​
tive writing in an EFL secondary setting. Language Teaching 97810​03106​609-​27
Research, 24(6), 874–897. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​13621​68819​ Zhang, L. J., Aryadoust, V., & Zhang, D. (2016). Taking stock of the
829017 effects of strategies-based instruction on writing in Chinese and
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psy‑ English in Singapore primary classrooms. In R. E. Silver & W.
chological processes. Harvard University Press. Borkhost-Heng (Eds.), Quadrilingual education in Singapore:
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learn- Pedagogical innovation in language education (pp. 103–126).
ing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​ Springer.
applin/​19.4.​515 Zhang, L. J., & Zhang, D. (2018). Metacognition in TESOL: Theory
Wenden, A. L. (2001). Meta-cognitive knowledge in SLA: The and practice. In J. I. Liontas & A. Shehadeh (Eds.), The TESOL
neglected variable. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions encyclopedia of English language teaching, Vol. II: Approaches
to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 44–46). and methods in English for speakers of other languages (pp. 682–
Pearson. 792). Wiley-Blackwell.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Zhang, M., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Collaborative writing in face-to-
Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, face settings: A substantive and methodological review. Journal of
26(3), 445–466. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32209​104670 Second Language Writing, 49, 100753. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in jslw.​2020.​100753
writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writ‑
ing, 21(4), 364–374. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jslw.​2012.​09.​005 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Xu, T. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2023). Effects of cognitive task complexity jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
and online planning on second language learners’ argumentative
writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1121994. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3389/​fpsyg.​2023.​11219​94

13