Metacognitive regulation of interactive metadiscourse strategies significantly predicts L2 argumentative writing performance, explaining about 11.3% of variance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The three MRIM strategies together significantly predict argumentative writing scores (F(3, 1074) = 45.793, p < .001, R2 = 0.113), with Cohen's f2 = 0.127. → Chenghui Chen 2025 q3 i? Each of PIM (β = 0.115), MIM (β = 0.344), and EIM (β = 0.179) is a significant positive predictor at the adjusted Bonferroni value of 0.017. → Chenghui Chen 2025 (2)

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

Simultaneous multiple regression with Sample Two (N = 1078), testing predictive validity against a timed 150–200-word argumentative essay scored by two raters (interrater reliability 0.88). "The effect size (Cohen's ƒ2 = 0.127)" was characterized as close to a medium factor.

"the three MRIM strategies (i.e., PIM, MIM, and EIM), as a whole, explain approximately 11.3% of the variance in students' argumentative writing test scores, F (3, 1074) = 45.793, p < .001, R2 = 0.113, adjusted R 2 = 0.111"

Chenghui Chen 2025 (2)¶

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

Per-predictor regression results against argumentative writing performance with the adjusted Bonferroni value at 0.017. All three strategies "can all yield a significant and positive prediction on the argumentative writing performance".

"planning of interactive metadiscourse (PIM) (β = 0.115, p = .005 < .017), monitoring of interactive metadiscourse (MIM) ( β = 0.344, p = .000 < .017) and evaluating of interactive metadiscourse (EIM) (β = 0.179, p = .004 < .017) can all yield a significant and positive prediction"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Monitoring of interactive metadiscourse has the strongest predictive power among the three MRIM strategies for L2 argumentative writing — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The MRIM scale has a three-factor structure of planning, monitoring, and evaluating of interactive metadiscourse, cross-validated by EFA and CFA — related
• The predictive effects of writing self-efficacy and motivation regulation strategies on writing achievement vary across achievement goal profiles and writing genre — related