INVITED TEACHING ISSUES

TESOL Quarterly publishes brief commentaries on aspects of English language

teaching.

Edited by JUDY SHARKEY

University of Hawaii at Manoa

Metacognition and Metacognitive Instruction in

Second Language Writing Classrooms
ICY LEE
The Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong
PAULINE MAK
The Education University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong

doi: 10.1002/tesq.436

M etacognition generally refers to knowledge and application of

cognitive processes (Flavell, 1979), which allows students to
apply, monitor, and regulate strategy use; develop insight into their
own strengths and weaknesses; and use such insight to improve their
learning. Language learning research has found that expert language
users are metacognitively aware, being able to make use of metacogni-
tive strategies to direct, manage, regulate, and enhance their learning
(Baker, 1989). There is research evidence that metacognition can
improve second language (L2) students’ learning effectiveness and
cognitive engagement (Wenden, 1998)—for example, in L2 reading
(e.g., Zhang, 2001), listening (e.g., Goh, 1998), and writing (Nguyen,
2016)—and that metacognitive instruction (MI) can help learners
improve their performance (Macaro & Erler, 2008). The research–
practice nexus, however, is complex, and teachers are found to lack
understanding of MI (Zhang, 2003). Although students may possess

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, xxxx 2018 1

© 2018 TESOL International Association
knowledge and strategies for performing tasks, oftentimes they tend
not to use them (Schraw, 2002); therefore, teachers have a critical role
to play in promoting student learning through enhancing their
metacognition.
In L2 writing, discussion about the application of metacognition is
limited, and because empirical research on metacognition has focused
mostly on tertiary settings, MI for L2 school learners is relatively unex-
plored and, as a result, not well understood. Given that writing is a
cognitively demanding task, particularly for younger L2 learners
(Schoonen, Snellings, Stevenson, & van Gelderen, 2009), the provision
of MI has great potential in improving students’ writing in schools.
With the increasing emphasis placed in L2 writing programs and ear-
lier starting ages for EFL education in different parts of the world
(Reichelt, 2009), the role of MI in L2 school contexts merits attention.
Although metacognition in writing is often linked to the notion of
genre, and hence to metacognitive genre awareness (Negretti, 2017;
Negretti & Kuteeva, 2011), this article proposes an integrated frame-
work (with genre as one component) that shows how MI can permeate
the teaching–learning–assessment process. Using the writing regulatory
checklist and writer log as examples, we illustrate the pedagogical
application of the integrated framework based on a story-writing task
that is well suited for L2 school learners (primary or secondary,
depending on student abilities in specific contexts). To begin with,
the article defines key terms relating to metacognition and examines
the role of metacognition in L2 writing.

DEFINING METACOGNITION

Metacognition comprises several key components, namely metacogni-

tive knowledge, metacognitive experiences (Flavell, 1979), and
metacognitive skills (Efklides, 2006). Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, and
Campione (1983) define metacognition in terms of metacognitive
knowledge and metacognitive strategies, with metacognitive strategies
being comparable to metacognitive skills, both denoting the skills and
strategies people use to regulate the cognitive processes. The control,
monitoring, and regulating aspect of metacognition is underscored as
an important component of metacognition, which is made up of
knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition (Brown, 1987).
More recently, Dunlosky and Metcalfe (2009) have posited that
metacognition consists of metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive
monitoring, and metacognitive control. Despite the different defini-
tions outlined above, they all point to similar domains of metacogni-
tion, with metacognitive knowledge being an indispensable

2 TESOL QUARTERLY
 FIGURE 1. Elements of metacognition.

component and metacognitive strategies playing a key role in metacog-

nitive control, monitoring, and regulation and helping shape metacog-
nitive experiences. In this article, metacognition is defined as
consisting of metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experiences,
and metacognitive strategies (see Figure 1).
To elaborate, at the forefront of metacognition is metacognitive
knowledge, characterized in terms of three variables: knowledge of per-
son, task, and strategy (Flavell & Wellman, 1977). Person knowledge
refers to knowledge of oneself including the cognitive processes and
factors that may impact learning, such as age, language aptitude, inter-
est, motivation, and self-efficacy (Wenden, 1998). Task knowledge
refers to knowledge of the purpose, nature, and demands of learning
tasks. Finally, strategy knowledge is knowledge of the strategies that
can be used to achieve the cognitive goals of learning tasks as well as
their effectiveness.
Metacognitive skills and strategies refer to the skills that students use to
regulate the cognitive processes, such as “overseeing, regulating, and
directing the language learning task, and thinking about the process
of learning” (Zhang, 2010, p. 321). During learning, students make
use of metacognitive strategies to plan, monitor, and evaluate their
learning (see Figure 1); they also select strategies, analyze their effec-
tiveness, and change strategies when needed (Ridley, Schutz, Glanz, &
Weinstein, 1992).
Metacognitive experiences occur when learners draw on their metacog-
nitive knowledge during cognitive task execution. Metacognitive expe-
riences can be cognitive or affective, characterized in terms of

INVITED TEACHING ISSUES 3

judgments (cognitive) or feelings (affective) before, during, or after a
cognitive task. During a cognitive endeavor, while learners’ metacogni-
tive experiences are influenced by their metacognitive knowledge,
their metacognitive experiences can further shape their metacognitive
knowledge. Metacognitive experiences can also activate the use of new
strategies whereby learners control, monitor, and regulate their cogni-
tions. At the same time, metacognitive strategies engender the use of
cognitive strategies that may lead to the revision of their metacognitive
knowledge.

INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK ON METACOGNITION IN

L2 WRITING

Based on the above understanding of metacognition, we propose an

integrated framework that is contextualized in the teaching, learning,
and assessment of writing, with examples of metacognitive tasks to
show how MI can be supported.

Metacognition in Teaching and Learning of Writing

Writing as a cognitive process. Both early and later models of the
writing process acknowledge the important role of the cognitive mon-
itor in overseeing the planning, translating, and reviewing process, as
well as the metacognitive components of writing in enabling learners
to plan, monitor, and evaluate the writing process (Bereiter & Scar-
damalia, 1987; Hayes & Flower, 1980). Simply put (see Figure 2),
metacognitive knowledge, stored at the resource level, is used at the
process level and serves as an important source of knowledge for the

FIGURE 2. Metacognition in the writing process.

4 TESOL QUARTERLY
control level. Thus, metacognition pervades the writing process, dur-
ing which students draw on their metacognitive knowledge and
metacognitive strategies to plan, monitor, and regulate their writing.
Their metacognitive experiences (e.g., negative evaluation of textual
organization) are influenced by their metacognitive knowledge (e.g.,
task knowledge) and may activate the use of new strategies (e.g., use
of coherence devices to improve overall organization) to enable them
to monitor and regulate their cognitions and to improve their
writing.
The process writing paradigm characterizes writing as an individu-
alistic activity that is “essentially learnt, not taught” (Hyland, 2003,
p. 18), and the teacher plays a facilitative and nondirective role,
mainly helping learners with meaning expression in writing. MI, how-
ever, requires teachers to play a more active role in fostering stu-
dents’ metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies in
writing and provide opportunities for metacognitive experiences (i.e.,
situations when conscious thinking is required). To do this, teachers
can first provide explicit instruction in a range of writing strategies—
for example, planning, text generating, feedback handling, and revis-
ing (Bai, 2015). The focus of MI is on the provision of explicit guid-
ance to facilitate and support students’ reflection, monitoring, and
evaluation of the metacognitive processes so that students are aware
of their deployment of metacognitive knowledge and strategies to
bring about successful writing experience. Figure 3 shows a metacog-
nitive task that provides students with opportunities to reflect on
their strategy use at different stages of the writing process, which can
not only promote strategy use but also enhance metacognitive aware-
ness (Schraw, 2002).

Writing as genre. Metacognition is the cornerstone of the cognitive

writing process, but metacognitive knowledge is also key to a genre
approach to writing. Genre pedagogy focuses on explicit instruction in
genre knowledge, which relates to an important domain of metacogni-
tive knowledge—namely, task knowledge, such as knowledge of the tar-
get genre, its purpose, audience, and context of situation. Awareness
of the readers and context of the target genre as well as the genre
structure and typical lexicogrammatical features can enable L2 stu-
dents to use language effectively to make meaning for the right con-
text and the right audience (Hyland, 2007). Explicit instruction alone,
however, is inadequate to help students write. Even when students per-
form genre analysis and acquire genre knowledge explicitly, without
the support and activation of metacognition, it is hard for them to
apply genre knowledge to benefit their own writing (Yeh, 2015). As
such, MI is crucial in facilitating the application of genre knowledge.

INVITED TEACHING ISSUES 5

 Strategy How to use When to use Why to use
Before wring
Draw a mind map Put the main At the idea- Helps brainstorm
idea/topic in the gathering stage and organize ideas
center of the map
and add related
ideas in the
branches
Use a visual Display and organize When a lot of ideas Establishes logical
organizer ideas logically in a have been generated relaonships
table, a chart, a between ideas to
diagram, etc. facilitate draing
During wring
Check the relevance Pause, think, and When a lot of Modifies content to
of content check whether main informaon is align it with the
ideas and supporng included in the dra topic
details are relevant
to the topic
Check grammar and Check whether When aempng Enhances accuracy
vocabulary using grammar and new grammacal of language use
online resources vocabulary are structures,
correctly used with vocabulary items
the help of online
tools
Aer wring
Evaluate what I did Reflect on wring to Aer receiving Builds confidence in
well discover strengths teacher feedback wring
Evaluate what I did Reflect on wring to Before the next Provides new goals
less well see which aspects piece of wring for subsequent
need improvement wring
FIGURE 3. Process writing strategy evaluation sheet.

In MI, the focus is on the development of metacognitive knowledge

with regard to genres, language use, purpose, audience, context, and
so on, as well as the use of metacognitive strategies (namely, planning,
monitoring, and evaluating) to improve writing. To this end, metacog-
nitive tasks can be provided to students individually and/or in small
groups. In a later section, such MI is illustrated with reference to the
writing regulatory checklist (Figure 4) and writer log (Figure 5) for
the story genre.

Writing as a socially situated activity. The activation of metacogni-

tion is particularly effective when students work in social groups
(Yeh, 2015). MI in the writing classroom can involve students in the
use of metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies in
socially situated activities, such as collaborative writing and peer

6 TESOL QUARTERLY
 Before wring: Planning
What is the purpose of the wring?
What genre is it?
Who is my intended audience?
What are my goals?
What specific informaon and strategies do I need?
How much me do I have?
What resources are available?

During wring: Monitoring

Is the purpose of the wring clear?
Am I using appropriate language for the target genre?
Am I wring for the right audience?
Am I reaching my goals?
Does my wring make sense?
What problems do I encounter, and what strategies do I use to get around the problems?

Aer wring: Evaluang

Have I met my goals?
What did I do well?
What did I do less well?
What should I do differently next me?
What new goals should I set?

FIGURE 4. A writing regulatory checklist.

feedback. When taking part in collaborative writing, students engage

in problem solving, resulting in collaborative dialogue (Swain, 2000).
Students reflect on how best to use language to make meaning,
known as languaging (Swain, 2010), during which they jointly deliber-
ate on the use of grammar, vocabulary, mechanics, and so on to
convey the most appropriate meaning in context. Through languag-
ing, metacognitive knowledge is fostered. Such collaborative pro-
cesses can take place in peer feedback too, where students interact
with peers as givers and recipients of feedback, during which
metacognition can be developed. To provide MI, coaching has to be
given to model productive collaborative processes (e.g., how students
can ask metacognitive questions about different aspects of writing,
like Why did you begin the story in this way?) so that students can be
turned into metacognitively strong writers.

Metacognition in Classroom Assessment of Writing

Metacognition has a pivotal role to play in classroom writing

assessment. Emphasizing assessment as a process of metacognition
(Earl & Katz, 2006), teachers can encourage students to monitor

INVITED TEACHING ISSUES 7

 Before wring

Goals Strategies
Write a story opening that grabs reader Use a dialogue, a proverb, or a maxim to
aenon begin the story
Use dialogues to describe some of the Use direct speech, and check the verb tense
events
Use a range of adjecves to describe the Use rich adjecves to make the seng and
seng and characters characters come to life

During wring

Metacognive quesons asked to monitor wring:

Is the proverb well chosen for the story opening? Is it beer to use dialogue?
Can the dialogue between the main character and her mother describe the quarrel well?
Can the adjecves depict the main character vividly?
Problems encountered Strategies used
“That’s what friends are for” seems to suit Surf the Internet for proverbs and maxims
the story ending beer than the opening. about friendship. Use “A friend in need is a
friend indeed” as the story opening.
The word “nice” is used five to six mes in Use “nice” only once, and replace it with
the story. other adjecves in other places (e.g., lovely
(weather), gorgeous (baby)).

Aer wring
Reflecon on goals:
I began the story in a prey interesng way.
Dialogues were a bit overused.
I used a variety of adjecves but some were not correctly used.

Strengths:
Good story structure, including opening and ending
Use of a wide range of adjecves

Weaknesses:
Too many dialogues made it hard for the readers to follow the story structure.
Some adjecves were misused—need to pay aenon to appropriate use of words in context.

Goals for further improvement:

In story wring, use a good balance of narrave details and dialogues.
Use online diconary/thesaurus to check the correct use of adjecves to describe seng and
characters.

FIGURE 5. The writer log.

and exert self-regulation over their thinking processes and foster stu-
dents’ capacity to be their own assessors. Using assessment to pro-
mote learning, teachers help students play a proactive role in their
learning, setting learning goals, asking metacognitive questions at

8 TESOL QUARTERLY
different stages of writing; self-assess and self-monitor their learning
progress; reflect on their learning; and make adjustments in their
thinking so as to achieve deeper understanding and to advance
their learning. During writing, students apply and develop their
metacognitive knowledge; employ metacognitive strategies to moni-
tor and regulate their learning; and, based on their metacognitive
experiences, revise their metacognitive knowledge to further
enhance their writing.
During classroom writing assessment, teachers can activate stu-
dents’ metacognition by asking them to set personal learning goals
and engage in ongoing self-monitoring. Metacognitive regulation
and control then occur, where students adopt metacognitive strate-
gies to achieve their learning goals. Also, students can act as learn-
ing resources for one another through conducting peer evaluation,
during which their purposeful dialogue can help one another
improve their writing (e.g., you did well on . . . because; this part needs
to be changed because . . . .; you can improve by . . . .), and enhance their
metacognitive knowledge. At different stages of writing, teachers can
also encourage students to develop ownership of their own learning
and writing through asking metacognitive questions (e.g., How can I
make my story beginning more attractive?). Students can keep their
written reflections in a writer log and conduct self-monitoring and
self-evaluation (to be elaborated in the following section and
Figure 5).
Specifically, classroom writing assessment can put an emphasis on
raising learners’ metacognitive awareness through the provision of
mediation (Poehner & Lantolf, 2003). For instance, during teacher–
student conferences, teachers can provide guidance to learners
through oral feedback on their writing, asking metacognitive questions
to help students learn and proceed in their zone of proximal develop-
ment (e.g., Why did you think it was not clear? What could you do to present
the ideas more clearly? How did you work it out?) to foster their metacogni-
tion. In MI, teachers can make students play an active role at writing
conferences, adjusting their feedback strategies according to individual
student needs (i.e., graduated assistance; Lantolf & Aljaafreh, 1995).
Take corrective feedback as an example. It can begin in an implicit
form and gradually become more concrete and explicit, so that
students learn to identify and correct errors by themselves and gain
self-regulation in the long run. For example, the teacher can ask, Why
did you use “are” with “news” here? instead of saying, News should be used
with “is” rather than “are.” The former feedback can urge the student
writer to draw on his or her metacognitive knowledge, respond to his
or her metacognitive experience, and adopt strategies to regulate and
improve the writing.

INVITED TEACHING ISSUES 9

IMPLEMENTING MI USING THE WRITING
REGULATORY CHECKLIST AND WRITER LOG

Drawing from the integrated framework and translating it into class-

room practice, we illustrate how MI can be implemented with the help
of a writing regulatory checklist (Figure 4) and writer log (Figure 5)
in a story-writing task. In actual classroom practice, we suggest teachers
use assessment as the point of departure for MI, commencing a writ-
ing unit by assigning the assessment task, and by sharing success crite-
ria with students explicitly, raising learners’ metacognitive awareness of
goals, purposes, audience, context, and demands of the writing task
(including genre and lexico-grammatical features). Assessment can
then be aligned with instruction, during which teachers engage in
explicit and scaffolded MI that raises students’ metacognitive aware-
ness of the major components of the writing task. To build metacogni-
tive awareness, students can use a writing regulatory checklist and
keep a writer log to focus on how they think about and monitor their
writing performance at different stages of the writing process. Using
(some of) the questions in the checklist (Figure 4), students docu-
ment their answers in the writer log (Figure 5). As exemplified in Fig-
ures 4 and 5, before writing students engage in planning, capturing
their metacognitive knowledge of the demands of the writing task;
specifically, they set personal learning goals. During writing, they mon-
itor the writing process, documenting the metacognitive questions
asked, the problems encountered, and the strategies used to resolve
the problems. After writing, students can reflect on their goals (based
on teacher, peer, and self-feedback), document the strengths and
weaknesses in their writing, and set new goals for further
improvement.

CONCLUSION
Metacognitively scaffolded writing instruction does not have to wait
until students go to college but can be provided to younger L2 stu-
dents at the primary and/or secondary level. This article has unpacked
the notion of metacognition, proposed an integrated framework that
illustrates how metacognition may pervade the teaching–learning–
assessment process, and provided examples to illustrate how MI can be
implemented in the writing classroom. Although the metacognitive
tasks suggested are designed for L2 school learners, they can also be
applied to postsecondary contexts. It is hoped that through teachers’
MI, L2 students, including schoolchildren, can be empowered to

10 TESOL QUARTERLY
become self-regulated and independent writers, which is a fundamen-
tal goal of education, particularly in the 21st century.

THE AUTHORS

Icy Lee is a professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction of the

Faculty of Education at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. She is currently
co-editor of the Journal of Second Language Writing and senior associate editor of
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher.

Pauline Mak is an assistant professor in the Department of English Language Edu-

cation at the Education University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include
language assessment, second language writing, and second language teacher
education.

REFERENCES

Bai, B. (2015). The effects of strategy-based writing instruction in Singapore pri-

mary schools. System, 53, 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.009
Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult
reader. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF01326548
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other
more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition,
motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning,
remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology (4th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 420–494). New York, NY: Wiley.
Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Earl, L. M., & Katz, S. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in
mind. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/assess/wncp/full_doc.
pdf
Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences
tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1, 3–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2005.11.001
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cog-
nitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Flavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Kail & J. W. Hagen
(Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition (pp. 3–33). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goh, C. C. M. (1998). How ESL learners with different listening abilities use com-
prehension strategies and tactics. Language Teaching Research, 2, 124–147.
https://doi.org/10.1191/136216898667461574
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing
processes. In L. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing
(pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

INVITED TEACHING ISSUES 11

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 12, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)
00124-8
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.
2007.07.005
Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of
proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Edu-
cational Research, 23, 619–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(96)80441-1
Macaro, E., & Erler, L. (2008). Raising the achievement of young-beginner readers
of French through strategy instruction. Applied Linguistics, 29, 90–119. https://
doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm023
Negretti, R. (2017). Calibrating genre: Metacognitive judgments and rhetorical
effectiveness in academic writing by L2 graduate students. Applied Linguistics,
38, 512–539. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv051
Negretti, R., & Kuteeva, M. (2011). Fostering metacognitive genre awareness in L2
academic reading and writing: A case study of pre-service English teachers. Jour-
nal of Second Language Writing, 20, 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.
02.002
Nguyen, H. T. (2016). Peer feedback practice in EFL tertiary writing classes. Eng-
lish Language Teaching, 9(6), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n6p76
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2003). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bring-
ing the past into the future (CALPER Working Papers Series No. 1). University
Park: Pennsylvania State University, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency,
Education and Research.
Reichelt, M. (2009). A critical evaluation of writing teaching programmes in differ-
ent foreign language settings. In R. M. Manch on (Ed.), Writing in foreign lan-
guage contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 183–206). Bristol, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Ridley, D. S., Schutz, P. A., Glanz, R. S., & Weinstein, C. E. (1992). Self-regulated
learning: The interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal-setting.
Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220973.1992.9943867
Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a
blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands
of foreign language writing. In R. M. Manch on (Ed.), Writing in foreign language
contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77–101). Bristol, England: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Schraw, G. (2002). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman
(Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp.
3–16). New York, NY: Springer.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition
through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning (pp. 97–115). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2010). Talking it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In R.
Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on second language learning and use (pp.
112–130). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 19, 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.515
Yeh, H. C. (2015). Facilitating metacognitive processes of academic genre-based
writing using an online writing system. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28,
479–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.881384

12 TESOL QUARTERLY
Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge
of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness,
10(4), 268–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410108667039
Zhang, L. J. (2003). Research into Chinese EFL learner strategies: Methods, find-
ings and instructional issues. RELC Journal, 34, 284–322. https://doi.org/10.
1177/003368820303400303
Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese univer-
sity students’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 320–353.
https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.223352

INVITED TEACHING ISSUES 13