Monitoring of interactive metadiscourse has the strongest predictive power among the three MRIM strategies for L2 argumentative writing¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? MIM (β = 0.344) outperforms PIM (β = 0.115) and EIM (β = 0.179) in predicting L2 argumentative writing performance. → Chenghui Chen 2025

Evidence¶

Chenghui Chen 2025¶

Chenghui Chen, Lawrence Jun Zhang. (2025). Development and validation of a scale for metacognitive regulation of interactive metadiscourse strategies in L2 argumentative writing. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09435-z

q3 · i? · associational · r2

From the multiple regression analysis with Sample Two (N = 1078), comparing standardized coefficients of the three MRIM subscales. MIM's β = 0.344 exceeds PIM's 0.115 and EIM's 0.179, all significant at the adjusted Bonferroni threshold.

"monitoring of interactive metadiscourse (MIM) has the strongest predictive power ( β = 0.344, p = .000 < .017) among the three factors. In other words, monitoring can be more powerful than planning and evaluating in predicting L2 argumentative writing ability"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Metacognitive regulation of interactive metadiscourse strategies significantly predicts L2 argumentative writing performance, explaining about 11.3% of variance — a broader claim this one bears on
• The MRIM scale has a three-factor structure of planning, monitoring, and evaluating of interactive metadiscourse, cross-validated by EFA and CFA — related