The predictive effects of writing self-efficacy and motivation regulation strategies on writing achievement vary across achievement goal profiles and writing genre¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1–r2 · q2 · i1–i3
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i1 For the overall sample, linguistic self-efficacy significantly predicted argumentative writing achievement (β = 0.164, p = .01), but no variable significantly predicted narrative achievement for the overall sample. → Jianhua Zhang 2025 q2 i3 In the LAGs profile, emotional control significantly predicted narrative writing achievement (β = 0.581, p = .041), the only significant narrative predictor in any profile. → Jianhua Zhang 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Jianhua Zhang 2025¶

Jianhua Zhang, Lawrence Jun Zhang. (2025). Unraveling the nexus among achievement goals, self-efficacy, and motivation regulation and their joint effects on L2 student writers' writing achievement: a person-based approach. Metacognition and Learning (2025) 20:29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09434-0

q2 · i1 · associational · r2

Multiple regression analyses on the overall sample and within each profile. The article reports "β = 0.164, p =.01" for linguistic self-efficacy on argumentative writing; for narrative writing the article states the variables "could not significantly predict writing achievement for the overall sample".

"in the argumentative writing, linguistic self-efficacy exposed a significant predictive effect on writing achievement ( β = 0.164, p =.01) for the overall sample"

Jianhua Zhang 2025 (2)¶

Jianhua Zhang, Lawrence Jun Zhang. (2025). Unraveling the nexus among achievement goals, self-efficacy, and motivation regulation and their joint effects on L2 student writers' writing achievement: a person-based approach. Metacognition and Learning (2025) 20:29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09434-0

q2 · i3 · associational · r1

Profile-wise multiple regressions on narrative-task scores. The article reports "β = 0.581, p =.041" for emotional control in the LAGs cohort; no variable significantly predicted narrative achievement in the MH, AAGs, or HAGs profiles.

"in narrative writing, only emotional control showed a significant predictive effect on writing achievement ( β = 0.581, p =.041) for the cohort in the LAGs profile"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Achievement Goal Orientation — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it
• Writing Skills — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• The four achievement goal profiles differ significantly in use of motivation regulation strategies (interest enhancement, motivational self-talk, emotional control) — related
• The four achievement goal profiles differ significantly in all four dimensions of writing self-efficacy — related
• Achievement goal profiles did not differ significantly in argumentative writing achievement, but did differ in narrative writing achievement — related
• Motivational SRL factors correlate with but do not directly predict Japanese EFL learners' proficiency — related
• Adult learners' motivational profiles differ significantly in self-efficacy, learning strategies and behavioral engagement: the good-quality motivation group scores higher on all three, the high-quantity group on strategies and engagement only — related
• Narrative/story writing is the most common genre used to operationalize writing in K‑5 writing‑motivation self‑report studies, suggesting a bias toward narrow aspects of writing — related
• L2 student writers' writing achievement goals form four latent profiles: Low All Goals, Mastery High, Average All Goals, and High All Goals — related
• Metacognitive regulation of interactive metadiscourse strategies significantly predicts L2 argumentative writing performance, explaining about 11.3% of variance — related