Content area
This study aimed to investigate the writing strategies across the three key stages: pre-writing, writing, and post-writing. Using a mixed-methods approach, the data were collected through a survey questionnaire of writing strategies that consist of 30 items about students’ writing strategies, which include self-regulating strategies, cognitive strategies, and metacognitive strategies. Sixty-two undergraduate students were involved as the participants of this study. The findings indicate that overall strategy use across all stages was moderate. In the pre-writing stage, students frequently set goals (M = 2.13) and organized ideas (M = 2.74), but seldom used exploratory strategies such as source searching (M = 1.69) and mind-mapping (M = 2.02). During the writing stage, students applied moderate self-regulation strategies, such as setting draft deadlines (M = 2.66), but showed limited focus on accurate grammar and mechanics (M = 2.02) and reflective practices (M = 2.23). In the post-writing stage, reviewing for content and organization scored the lowest (M = 1.66), while rubric use (M = 2.53) and draft finalization (M = 2.66) were more frequently practiced. These findings highlight the needs of metacognitive engagement and reflective practices to enhance students’ writing skills. Pedagogically, this study suggests integrating reflective practices, collaborative activities, and technology tools like AI-driven writing platforms to put it all together to promote learner autonomy. In addition, this research involves a small number of participants and is applied in a narrow context; future studies should be applied to larger groups of participants from various EFL settings.
Introduction
Writing in EFL contexts is often perceived as a daunting task due to a variety of challenges, including linguistic difficulties, cognitive demands, cultural expectations, and psychological pressures. Learners commonly face limited grammatical knowledge, unfamiliarity with syntactic patterns, and restricted vocabulary, which hinder their ability to produce coherent and cohesive texts. Additionally, the requirement to express original and critical thought adds further cognitive load, making writing even more complex (Alharbi, 2017). Faced with these multifaceted challenges, EFL learners are compelled to adopt various writing strategies to cope with and overcome the demands of academic writing.
Particularly in an academic writing context, students face cognitive and psychological barriers as they are required to organize ideas, create arguments, and express thoughts clearly in a good written text (Bulqiyah et al., 2021). Also, the fact that students are learning different languages may affect how well they can write because it needs to follow certain grammar rules and use the right words, phrases, and vocabulary to meet the learning goals or outcomes. Another challenge is also compounded when they have difficulties putting the concepts or strategies they learned into practice; as in writing instruction, there is a discrepancy between concept and practice, as well as between attitude and practice (Bozorgian et al., 2024).
In response to these challenges, some approaches need to be taken in teaching writing for EFL learners, such as the process approach, genre-based approach, and process-genre approach. The first is commonly used by EFL teachers to teach writing to their students, as it consists of several stages, such as creating, planning, writing the first copy, polishing, and writing the final draft (Oshima & Hogue, 2006). Meanwhile, Badger and White (2000) combine the process approach and the genre-based approach into the process-genre approach, which enables students to merge the stages of the writing process from planning, drafting, revising, and editing into different types of texts. Such an approach requires continuous effort from the teachers and time, as this dynamic process provides feedback and guidance to the students over their writing drafts (Rusinovci, 2015). In addition to writing teaching approaches, the use of learning strategies during the writing process also plays an important role in enhancing students’ writing skills.
In the EFL writing context, learning strategies traditionally refer to the strategies that the learners use to perform their learning tasks and solve problems in a cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulating activities (Hu, 2022). These strategies are imbedded in the writing process, which includes planning, outlining, revising, self-monitoring, and self-regulating (Anggraini et al., 2020). Also, these strategies are key factors of writing success, as they determine students’ capacity to effectively address the task of writing and improve their writing outcomes. In addition, metacognitive strategies help students become more aware of their writing strengths and weaknesses, which further allows them to enhance their writing abilities through an iterative process. While there has been significant research on the identification and classification of writing strategies used by EFL learners (Abbas & Fathira, 2022; Hu, 2022; Teng et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023), most studies have focused on traditional qualitative or survey-based approaches to investigate strategy use. Such approaches frequently depend on self-reported data, which may not fully represent the intricacies or veracity of learners’ true writing behaviors. Self-reports can be influenced by different biases, including the social desirability bias or limited metacognitive awareness of the learners. Self-assessment is an important means of raising students’ metacognitive awareness and promoting independent learning. Self-assessment, wherein students rate their own writing performance and strategies, asks for reflection, personal responsibility and critical thinking. Self-assessment also helps students become more aware of their writing processes, the learning strategies they utilize, and ways to improve (Mazloomi & Khabiri, 2018; Ratminingsih et al., 2018).
Researches claimed that self-assessment leads the learners to monitor their progress and efforts and make some relevant changes to their strategies, which are important for language development (Cheong et al., 2023; Sahebkheir, 2018). In EFL settings, self-assessment was proved to contribute a positive impact on writing abilities (Alkhowarizmi & Hamdani, 2022; Ebrahimi et al., 2021; Takarroucht, 2022; Taufik & Cahyono, 2020; Taufiqulloh, 2015; Zhang & Zhang, 2022). Despite the effectiveness of self-assessment as a powerful means to promote and encourage autonomy and quality learning circumstances, there has been relatively little research into how the process can be used to evaluate more accurately students’ learning strategies in terms of EFL writing. So far, the majority of research related to self-assessment in language learning has emphasized assessing writing quality or performance, not the strategies used by the learners themselves (Apridayani et al., 2024).
In recent years, an increasing number of studies have investigated cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulation strategies in EFL writing (e.g., Bai & Wang, 2021; Ruan, 2022; Teng, 2022; Teng & Zhang, 2020; Yusuf & Widyaningsih, 2023). However, the majority of these studies have examined these strategies in isolation or focused on limited stages of the writing process. Very few have holistically explored the integration of cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulation strategies across the entire writing cycle. To address this gap, the present study introduces a self-assessment-based framework to examine learners’ strategic behaviors during the pre-writing, writing, and post-writing stages. The study seeks to provide deeper insight into how self-assessment can foster strategic awareness, enhance metacognitive development, and promote greater learner autonomy. Through this approach, the research aims to contribute to the development of more comprehensive and pedagogically sound models for supporting writing strategy instruction in EFL contexts.
This study offers a valuable contribution to the field of EFL writing instruction by integrating self-assessment not only as a tool for evaluating writing performance but also as a framework to investigate students’ use of cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulating strategies across the three stages of the writing process. While prior studies have predominantly focused on either strategy use or self-assessment separately, this research bridges the two areas to provide a comprehensive perspective on how self-assessment can reveal students’ strategic behaviors in academic writing. Unlike many existing studies that rely on qualitative or self-reported performance data, this study adopts a mixed-methods approach to validate and triangulate findings. It emphasizes the diagnostic function of self-assessment in enhancing metacognitive awareness and promoting learner autonomy, a critical aspect often underexplored in previous EFL writing research. Furthermore, this study is one of the few empirical efforts situated in the Indonesian EFL context that combines strategy use with reflective assessment practices, offering practical implications for localized pedagogical interventions and the development of strategy-based writing instruction models over time (Teng et al., 2022).
Review of related literature
Writing self-regulated learning strategies
Writing strategies are essential in supporting students’ performance in EFL writing, as they guide learners through the complex cognitive and metacognitive processes involved in composing texts. Broadly, writing strategies encompass a range of cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioral actions used by learners to plan, monitor, evaluate, and revise their writing (Graham & Harris, 2000; Oxford, 1990). Within this broader domain, writing self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies refer to learners’ ability to proactively manage their learning through goal setting, self-monitoring, self-reflection, and strategy adjustment throughout the writing process (Zimmerman, 2000; Teng & Zhang, 2021).
This study adopts the model of writing SRL strategies proposed by Teng (2016; 2022), which categorizes learners’ strategic behaviors into three major dimensions: cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational regulation strategies, all applied within the context of writing. Writing SRL strategies emphasize learner autonomy, aligning closely with self-assessment practices that enable learners to evaluate and regulate their own writing performance. As noted by Teng and Ying (2023), these strategies significantly affect EFL learners’ academic writing outcomes. Furthermore, self-assessment is recognized as a foundational component of writing SRL strategies, as it allows learners to revise, self-edit, and reflect critically on their writing performance (Taufiqulloh, 2015). While primarily focused on writing, the effectiveness of self-assessment has also been observed in developing other EFL skills, such as speaking (Sintayani & Adnyayanti, 2022), reading (Baniabdelrahman, 2010), listening, and vocabulary acquisition (Vangah, 2013). Recent studies further support the contribution of writing SRL strategies to academic writing development (Sun & Wang, 2020; Teng, 2022; Umamah et al., 2022), highlighting their relevance in addressing the multifaceted challenges faced by EFL learners.
Cognitive writing strategies involve learners’ mental efforts to generate ideas, organize content, and produce coherent texts. These strategies emphasize the technical aspects of writing, such as planning, drafting, revising, and editing, and are essential for managing the mechanics of composition (Chamot, 2005; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). In EFL essay writing, cognitive strategies are activated across all stages of the writing process, guiding learners from simple tasks, such as brainstorming or outlining, to more complex operations like restructuring ideas and refining sentence-level accuracy (Teng, 2016; Ruan, 2022). By breaking down writing into manageable steps, these strategies help learners structure their ideas systematically and improve the quality of their written work (Bai & Wang, 2021; Oxford, 1990).
In contrast, metacognitive writing strategies refer to learners’ awareness and regulation of their own writing processes. These include planning, monitoring, and evaluating one’s writing with the aim of achieving specific rhetorical or linguistic goals (Flavell, 1979; Zimmerman, 2000; Teng & Zhang, 2021). In EFL contexts, metacognitive strategies support learners in identifying objectives, setting goals, and checking progress during each stage of the writing process. For instance, during the planning phase, learners select a topic, generate ideas, and establish an outline or framework for their text (Ruan, 2022; Teng, 2022). As they draft and revise, the monitoring stage helps them assess the organization, language accuracy, coherence, and content quality of their work (Al-Jarrah et al., 2018; Amawa, 2022). Self-assessment plays a critical role in this phase by promoting learners’ ability to self-regulate and self-monitor their writing (Rosdiana et al., 2023a, 2023b; Teng & Yue, 2023). Based on the insights gained through self-assessment, students revise and refine their work, leading to more polished final drafts.
Writing assessment
Writing assessment is a critical area of concern for both teachers and researchers in EFL contexts. As Alqarni and Alshakhi (2021) state, the primary purposes of writing assessment are to make inferences about learners’ language abilities and to inform decisions about their progress or the effectiveness of teaching methods. In practice, however, writing assessments often face challenges related to validity, reliability, and fairness. These challenges are particularly apparent in EFL writing classes, where assessments may not fully capture the complexity of writing skills or may be influenced by subjective biases (González, 2021). As noted by Sohrabi et al. (2022), there is often a disconnect between what is taught in the classroom and how it is assessed, leading to issues with the application of learned concepts in real writing tasks.
One of the most critical aspects of writing assessment is validity, which refers to the extent to which an assessment accurately measures what it intends to measure (Brown, 2004). In the context of writing assessment, this means that tests should capture all relevant aspects of writing, including content, organization, grammar, coherence, and vocabulary. Several types of validity, including content, construct, and criterion-related validity, must be considered when designing and evaluating writing tests. Content validity ensures that a test reflects all key components of writing, while construct validity examines whether a test measures the intended skills or abilities. Criterion-related validity ensures that the test results align with other similar tests or real-world tasks.
In addition, this study highlights key gaps in current research on EFL writing. Although many studies investigate writing strategies, they often rely heavily on self-reported data such as questionnaires or interviews, which may not accurately capture learners’ actual writing behaviors (Kim & Kim, 2021; Zhang & Zhang, 2020). Furthermore, existing research on self-assessment in writing tends to focus primarily on evaluating writing products or performance rather than exploring the underlying cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulation strategies that inform the writing process (Aldosari & Alsobhi, 2022; Rahayu et al., 2023). There is also limited empirical evidence on how these strategies can be meaningfully integrated into EFL writing instruction to foster deeper learner engagement and control over the writing process (Chen & Zhang, 2021; Nguyen, 2022). To address these gaps, the present study proposes a self-assessment framework to investigate writing strategies during the pre-writing, writing, and post-writing stages. The goal is to enhance learners’ metacognitive awareness and promote greater autonomy in their writing practices.
Methodology
This study employed a mixed-methods approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018) to investigate students’ writing strategies through a survey questionnaire within the context of EFL. The questionnaire specifically targeted three key phases of the writing process: pre-writing strategies, writing strategies, and post-writing strategies. This study aims to assess not only the psychometric properties of the questionnaire but also to gain insights into how EFL students engage with each phase of the writing process. The quantitative strand involved a survey questionnaire, while the qualitative strand supported interpretation by exploring how students engaged with various stages of the writing process. This approach was selected to provide a richer, more nuanced understanding of students’ strategic behaviors during pre-writing, writing, and post-writing phases (Ivankova et al., 2006). The combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection methods allows for a comprehensive understanding of the specific strategies employed by students at different stages of writing.
Instrument
The main instrument was a self-report questionnaire adapted from existing validated tools (e.g., Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning–Oxford, 1990; and Petrić & Czárl, 2003), modified to focus on writing-specific strategies across three writing stages: pre-writing, writing, and post-writing. The questionnaire consisted of 30 items, divided equally into the three stages. Each stage included items representing self-regulating, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies. Responses were recorded using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Table 1 illustrates the construct dimensions and item distribution.
Table 1. Items distribution of the questionnaire
Writing stage | Strategy dimension | Number of items |
|---|---|---|
Pre-writing | Cognitive, metacognitive, self-regulation | 10 |
Writing | Cognitive, metacognitive, self-regulation | 10 |
Post-writing | Cognitive, metacognitive, self-regulation | 10 |
Before administration, the questionnaire underwent expert validation by three TEFL specialists and a pilot test with 20 non-participating students from the same institution. Based on their feedback, several items were revised for clarity and relevance.
Setting and participants
This study was conducted at the English Education Department, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Universitas Pancasakti Tegal in the academic year 2023/2024. It involved 62 students who attended academic writing courses.
Data collection
The collection of research data was conducted after the writing courses in the odd academic semester of 2023/2024. The data were gathered through a survey questionnaire of writing strategies which consists of 30 items about students'writing strategies in 3 stages: pre-writing, writing, and post-writing. In each stage, 10 writing strategy questions are presented which include self-regulating strategy, cognitive strategy, and metacognitive strategy. The questionnaire was structured into three phases. Each phase includes 10 items that reflect three types of strategies: self-regulating, cognitive, and metacognitive, as commonly found in L2 writing research (e.g., Oxford, 1999). This structure ensures balanced coverage and allows students to reflect on specific strategies used at each stage of writing. Pre-writing strategies involve planning and idea generation, writing strategies focus on drafting and maintaining motivation, while post-writing strategies emphasize reviewing, revising, and seeking feedback. The number of items per phase was deliberately limited to 10 to maintain focus and avoid respondent fatigue (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2010). This design supports the development of a comprehensive and practical self-assessment tool for EFL students.
To measure the construct or content validity of the questionnaire, factor analysis in SPSS was utilized. Thirty questionnaire items with loadings between 0.6 and 0.9 are valid. For criterion validity, the t-value of the correlation coefficient lies in three categories: small (0.10 to 0.29), medium (0.30 to 0.49) and high (0.50 to 1.00). The results showed that 30 statements were valid and applicable with a validity level of 0.36 to 1. Cronbach’s alpha was also used for measuring the reliability. The reliability coefficient commonly ranges between 0 and 1. When it is closer to 1, it means that the items have greater internal consistency. It was found that the questionnaire was reliable as it showed a high reliability level of 0.96.
Data analysis
The data were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. For the quantitative analysis, descriptive analysis using SPSS was presented to evaluate the students’ writing strategies as reflected in their responses to the questionnaire. In addition to the quantitative approach, the qualitative analysis was also conducted to interpret the students’ writing strategies within the context of the writing process.
Results and discussions
Descriptive statistics measurement with SPSS software was utilized to find out the mean, the standard deviation, and the minimum as well as the maximum score of each questionnaire item. It is to understand how responses are distributed across Likert scale options for each statement. The results and further interpretations of each stage of writing are figured out below.
Results of analysis of pre-writing strategies questionnaire data
Table 2 provides the minimum, maximum, average, and standard deviation values for 10 questionnaire items evaluating students’ pre-writing strategies, such as planning, organizing, and reflecting.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of pre-writing strategies
Item | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I set clear objectives to achieve before I start my writing | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.13 | .983 |
I set a deadline to finish my pre-writing activities | 62 | 1 | 5 | 2.92 | 1.045 |
I reflect on whether or not I have prior knowledge about the topic | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.26 | .991 |
I explore the topic by breaking it down into some for deeper understanding | 62 | 1 | 5 | 2.19 | 1.128 |
I search for sources or information to generate ideas about the topic | 62 | 1 | 4 | 1.69 | .951 |
I create mind mapping to organize the ideas about the topic | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.02 | .983 |
I organize my ideas into a logical structure | 62 | 1 | 5 | 2.74 | 1.070 |
I make an outline of my writing | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.21 | .943 |
I encourage and motivate myself to prepare for my essay | 62 | 1 | 5 | 2.48 | 1.156 |
I reflect on what I have done on my pre-writing activities | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.32 | 1.004 |
The classification of several items as pre-writing strategies is based on the writing process model, which identifies pre-writing as the initial phase where writers engage in planning, idea generation, and readiness activities before drafting begins. In this study, items categorized under pre-writing strategies include behaviors such as setting writing goals, determining deadlines, activating prior knowledge, searching for relevant sources, generating ideas through mind mapping, and creating outlines. These actions are considered pre-writing because they occur before the actual act of composing, and they are intended to prepare, organize, and motivate students for the drafting process. Grouping these items under the pre-writing phase allows for a focused examination of students’ preparatory efforts and their role in shaping writing performance.
As shown in Table 2, both cognitive and self-regulation strategies were applied at a moderate level during the pre-writing stage. For example, establishing writing goals (M = 2.13) reflects a self-regulation strategy, as it involves setting personal objectives and managing motivation. Meanwhile, structuring ideas systematically through outlining or organizing (M = 2.74) represents a cognitive strategy, as it deals with mental processes used to organize and represent content. These results are consistent with contemporary views that emphasize the importance of planning in writing, which enables students to adopt a more methodical and effective approach (Oshima & Hogue, 2006).
However, the result also revealed the limited use of some exploratory tools. For example, looking outside for sources (M = 1.69) or creating mind maps (M = 2.02) is hardly used at all. Although key for generating and ordering ideas, these activities are seldom used in student preparation processes. Such exploratory strategies as these, the literature suggests, are critical to deepening understanding and enhancing the quality of writing. In particular, visual tools such as the mind map, as stated by Al-Jarrah et al. (2018a), can better help students connect ideas and present their thoughts more clearly. This is especially important in tasks that are as intricate as academic writing.
Similarly, moderate levels of reflective practices, such as assessing previous knowledge (M = 2.26) and pre-writing tasks (M = 2.32), highlight the necessity of increased focus on metacognitive engagement. Reflection helps students understand what they are good at and what they need to work on—a key process for improvement and development of effective strategies. This helps build metacognitive awareness and helps facilitate and promote autonomous learning: Teng and Yue (2023) recommend structured reflection activities (e.g., guided questions or self-assessment questions).
Results of analysis of writing strategies questionnaire data
Table 3 presents a summary of students’ answers to 10 questions about the strategies they employed while writing, such as using proper grammar, organizing ideas, and managing themselves through deadlines and reflective practices.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of writing strategies
Item | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I set a deadline to finish the first draft of my essay | 62 | 1 | 5 | 2.66 | 1.159 |
I start with the hook in the background to grab readers’ attention | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.53 | 1.067 |
I use proper grammar, sentence structures, vocabulary, and mechanical aspects of writing | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.02 | .983 |
I provide sufficient supporting details (facts, examples, quotes, etc.) to support my arguments | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.21 | 1.010 |
I use proper transition signals to link paragraphs | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.53 | 1.036 |
I organized the ideas as well | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.23 | .948 |
I encourage and motivate myself during the writing process | 62 | 1 | 5 | 2.45 | 1.082 |
I stay focused on accomplishing the draft | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.26 | .991 |
I reflect on what I have done during the writing stage | 62 | 1 | 5 | 2.23 | 1.062 |
I make some necessary changes after reflection | 62 | 1 | 5 | 2.66 | 1.159 |
Table 3 figures out the findings of writing strategies that highlight fairly self-regulated learning strategies, such as giving deadlines for drafts (M = 2.66) and revising after thought (M = 2.66). The findings brought students’ attention to the importance of time management and recursive writing, both of which are essential to achieving academic success. Engaging self-regulated learning strategies helps students handle complex tasks by first setting clear goals and then constantly keeping an eye out for potential pitfalls (Sun & Wang, 2020).
This study highlighted a significant lack of emphasis on accurate language, scoring lowest for proper grammar and mechanics (M = 2.02). This indicates an intense sense of the need for linguistic precision, a condition for academic writing. Fundamentally, as Rusinovci (2015) describes, strong linguistic skills do not only ensure clarity of the writing in question, but also aid the holistic persuasiveness of the written content.
The use of transition signals (M = 2.53) and organization of ideas (M = 2.23) moderately demonstrates inconsistencies in students’ cognitive strategies. These elements are vital to writing well-organized and cohesive essays because they navigate the reader through the writer’s argument. Responses to metacognitive practices, like reflecting during the writing process (M = 2.23), are inconsistent, suggesting that students would have to rely more on monitoring and evaluation techniques. Bozorgian et al. (2024) highlight the importance of bridging the divide between knowledge and practice, noting that students frequently struggle to apply strategies effectively.
Addressing gaps in writing strategies
To develop students’ writing practices, teachers should focus on cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Scaffolding techniques such as guided writing exercises or step-by-step outlines can better support students’ essay organization. Moreover, by providing specific feedback on the correctness of language use, students can reduce grammar and mechanics errors to elevate their written skills. The peer review activities are crucial in terms of metacognitive engagement as well. Reading their classmates’ work exposes students to a variety of writing styles and strategies that can enhance their own approaches. Peer review has also been shown to increase writing quality as well as critical thinking and self-regulation (Mazloomi & Khabiri, 2018).
Results of analysis of post-writing strategies questionnaire data
Table 4 presents the statistical results of students’ post-writing strategies, such as reviewing, revising, utilizing checklists, and obtaining feedback to finalize their drafts.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of post-writing strategies
Item | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I set a deadline to review the first draft of my essay | 62 | 1 | 3 | 1.68 | .763 |
I review my essay whether or not it meets the objective as set in the pre-writing stage | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.02 | .820 |
I review my essay for its content and organization | 62 | 1 | 3 | 1.66 | .745 |
I review my essay for its grammar, sentence structures, vocabulary, and mechanical aspects of writing | 62 | 1 | 3 | 1.81 | .721 |
I review my essay for its unity and coherence | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.13 | .914 |
I use a rubrics or checklist to review my essay | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.53 | 1.067 |
I stay well encouraged and motivated to review my essay | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.02 | .983 |
I search for constructive feedback from peers and teachers | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.02 | .820 |
I reflect on what I have done during the post-writing stage | 62 | 1 | 4 | 2.32 | 1.004 |
I revise and make a final copy of draft before submission | 62 | 1 | 5 | 2.66 | 1.159 |
Drawn from Table 3, the findings on post-writing strategies show a significant lack of systematic review methods. Some students reported the lowest levels of engagement during review in terms of content and organization (M-1.66) or setting deadlines for revision (M-1.68). These findings suggest that perhaps students do not comprehend the importance of thorough assessment in fixing up a piece of polished final draft. Post-writing activities (Brown, 2004) such as reviewing and revising are essential to refining ideas and improving the overall coherence of written work.
Table 3 also reveals a moderate level of engagement in using rubrics or checklists (M = 2.53) and seeking feedback from peers and teachers (M = 2.02), as Cheong et al. (2023) emphasize the importance of feedback in encouraging critical reflection and fostering iterative improvement. However, the inconsistent use of these strategies may suggest that students are not fully familiar with effective review techniques.
The greatest mean score at this stage was observed for modifying and concluding drafts (M = 2.66), indicating that students are committed to completing their assignments. However, this can be exposed by the absence of conclusive appraisal mechanisms. Rosdiana et al., (2023a, 2023b) add that organized thought and methodical assessment are necessary to maximize benefits during the revision phase.
Enhancing post-writing practices
EFL writing teachers, in response, must devote more effort to systematic review and real evaluation tools to help students deal with emerging challenges. Using detailed rubrics or checklists integrated into writing can allow students to determine if they are assessing their work in multiple areas (content, organization, language use, etc.). In addition, creating a culture of constructive feedback can support students’ engagement with peer and teacher feedback. Moreover, structured peer review sessions with guidelines and criteria can aid students to critically assess their peers and enhance their writing collaboratively.
Integrating technology and innovative practices
Students can develop strategies by using technology as a part of the writing process. Following their own progress and getting real-time criticism from an AI editor, or following their own assessment online, are two advantages of measures such as online writing platforms and e-portfolios. As mentioned by Taufik and Cahyono (2020), e-portfolios promote learner independence and create opportunities for reflection. The result of this assessment vs correction ethos strips away some of the language learning appeal for those learners who are learning Languages or writing in English; furthermore, learners. Spelling and punctuation checks, for instance, are features that can eliminate mistakes even before they are made; Microsoft Word grammar is a good example. While students are engaging with these software programs at a distance, they naturally receive conventional feedback from teachers.
Pedagogical implications
EFL writing teachers can add other techniques or interventions such as brainstorming and research. Students have the opportunity to research topics relevant to their writing. Collaborative activities can enhance this by helping students identify their areas of weakness and effectively gather feedback for improvement. Moreover, embedding reflective practices into the pre-writing stage can foster deeper engagement with the task. For instance, instructors could integrate reflective journals or structured worksheets that prompt students to evaluate their planning process. These tools not only encourage critical thinking but also help students internalize effective strategies for future writing tasks.The findings of this study also indicate that cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulation strategy training are very important in different parts of the writing process. In doing so, we will be strengthening the students’ ability to connect with writing strategies by being explicit, working together, and reflecting holistically.
Limitations and future research
This study not only provides valuable insights into how EFL students think about the process of writing, but also points to areas of further investigation. For example, self-reporting can be biased and may not accurately represent the intricacies of students’ writing behaviors. In addition, the small sample size and limited scope of the study reduce its applicability on larger populations. In order to address these gaps, future studies should recruit more diverse and larger samples from different EFL contexts. Understanding how various self-evaluation methods impact writing across time, as well as utilizing state-of-the-art instruments such as AI-based writing programs, may support English language learners with their cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulation skills.
Conclusion
In summary, the findings of this study also suggest that EFL students possessed a number of effective writing strategies but need to develop their usage of appropriate strategies. Although students seem to have a foundation in self-regulation and cognitive practices, the variability in their use of metacognitive practices indicates that targeted support is needed. Educators can guide students toward becoming more competent and self-reliant writers by filling these gaps through direct instruction, collaborative activities, and the integration of technology. In the end, a holistic approach to writing instruction will lead to better academic performance and increased learner independence.
Clinical trial number
Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions
T : Conceptualization, method, data collection, data analysis, writing original draft, funding acquisition. M.A.N. & A.E.S. : authentication. D.R.S. : Supervision
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This research adhered to the ethical standards established by the institution and the principles outlined in the Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent revisions. Ethical approval was obtained from the English Education Department at Universitas Pancasakti Tegal. Participants were comprehensively informed about the study's objectives and methodology, and their informed consent was obtained before to participation
Consent for publication
All authors have thoroughly examined and approved the article for submission. Participants were informed that their anonymized replies could be used for research and publication purposes. This study did not receive any budgetary support from any fnancial organization for the purpose of this study.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Abbas, MFF; Fathira, V. Utilizing collaborative writing strategy to create skills of 21st century: Efl learners’ perceptions. Al-Ishlah: Jurnal Pendidikan; 2022; 14,
Aldosari, H. S., & Alsobhi, A. Y. (2022). Investigating EFL learners’ perceptions of self-assessment in academic writing: Focus on strategy use and performance. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(8), 1552–1561. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1208.08
Alharbi, SH. Principled eclecticism: Approach and application in teaching writing to ESL/EFL students. English Language Teaching; 2017; 10,
Al-Jarrah, TM; Mansor, N; Rashid, RA; Bashir, I; Al-Jarrah, JM. EFL students’ attitude toward using metacognitive strategies in writing. English Language Teaching; 2018; 11,
Alkhowarizmi, A., & Hamdani, H. (2022). The effect of using self-assessment technique towards EFL students’ writing skills. Edulitics Journal, 7(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.52166/edulitics.v7i2.3572
Alqarni, T., & Alshakhi, A. (2021). The impact of negotiation as a social practice on EFL writing peer assessment sessions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 11(10), 1341–1348. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1110.23
Amawa, I. G. N. E. V. (2022). ELT students’ metacognitive writing strategies. AMCA Journal of Education and Behavioral Change, 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.51773/ajeb.v2i1.139
Anggraini, R; Rozimela, Y; Anwar, D. The effects of collaborative writing on EFL learners’ writing skills and their perception of the strategy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research; 2020; 11,
Apridayani, A; Han, W; Sakkanayok, K. Enhancing English writing competence in higher education: A comparative study of teacher-only assessment versus teacher and student self-assessment approaches. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education; 2024; 9,
Badger, R; White, G. A Process Genre Approach to Teaching Writing.; 2000; 54,
Bai, B; Wang, J. The role of growth mindset, self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning in students’ writing achievement in English as a second language. System; 2021; 102, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102595] 102595.
Baniabdelrahman, A. A. (2010). The effect of the use of self-assessment on EFL students’ performance in reading comprehension in English. The Elcetronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 14(2). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ899764.pdf
Bozorgian, H; Nemati, N; Shamsi, E; Yaqubi, B. What English language in-service teachers think, know, and do about writing instruction: Iranian teachers’ stated attitudes vs. actual practice. TESOL Journal; 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tesj.756]
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. H. Douglas Brown. In 2004.
Bulqiyah, S; Mahbub, Moh. A.; Nugraheni, DA. Investigating writing difficulties in essay writing: Tertiary students’ perspectives. English Language Teaching Educational Journal; 2021; 4,
Chamot, AU. Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics; 2005; 25, pp. 112-130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061]
Chen, W; Zhang, LJ. Effects of strategy-based instruction on self-regulated strategy use and writing performance in EFL learners. Language Teaching Research; 2021; 25,
Cheong, CM; Luo, N; Zhu, X; Lu, Q; Wei, W. Self-assessment complements peer assessment for undergraduate students in an academic writing task. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education; 2023; 48,
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Ebrahimi, M; Izadpanah, S; Namaziandost, E. The impact of writing self-assessment and peer assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ autonomy and metacognitive awareness. Education Research International; 2021; 2021,
Flavell, JH. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist; 1979; 34,
González, E. F. (2021). The impact of assessment training on EFL writing classroom assessment: Voices of Mexican university teachers. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 23(1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v23n1.85019
Graham, S; Harris, KR. The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist; 2000; 35,
Hu, N. Investigating Chinese EFL learners’ writing strategies and emotional aspects. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network; 2022; 15,
Ivankova, NV; Creswell, JW; Stick, SL. Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods; 2006; 18,
Kim, Y; Kim, J. A mixed-methods study on EFL students' writing strategy use: A comparison of self-reported data and writing logs. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education; 2021; 6,
Laupichler, MC; Aster, A; Perschewski, JO; Schleiss, J. Evaluating AI courses: A valid and reliable instrument for assessing artificial-intelligence learning through comparative self-assessment. Education Sciences; 2023; 13,
Mazloomi, S; Khabiri, M. The impact of self-assessment on language learners’ writing skill. Innovations in Education and Teaching International; 2018; 55,
Moses, RN; Yamat, H. Testing the validity and reliability of a writing skill assessment. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences; 2021; 11,
Nguyen, TTM. Strategy training in L2 writing classrooms: A review of research and instructional practices. RELC Journal; 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00336882221127661]
O'Malley, JM; Chamot, AU. Learning strategies in second language acquisition; 1990; Cambridge University Press:
Oshima, A; Hogue, A. Writing academic English. Pearson Longman; 2006; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004]
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House.
Palinkas, LA; Horwitz, SM; Green, CA; Wisdom, JP; Duan, N; Hoagwood, K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research; 2015; 42,
Petrić, B; Czárl, B. Validating a writing strategy questionnaire. System; 2003; 31,
Rahayu, D. P., Setyowati, R., & Wijayanti, F. (2023). Self-assessment in EFL writing classes: What does it reveal about learners’ strategies? Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v13i1.54126
Ratminingsih, NM; Marhaeni, AAIN; Vigayanti, LPD. Self-assessment: The effect on students’ independence and writing competence. International Journal of Instruction; 2018; 11,
Rosdiana, L. A., Damaianti, V. S., Mulyati, Y., & Sastromiharjo, A. (2023). The role of metacognitive strategies in academic writing skills in higher education. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22(6), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.6.18
Rosdiana, R., Sumardi, S., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2023). The effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on EFL learners’ writing proficiency and strategy use. International Journal of Instruction, 16(1), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16117a
Ruan, Y. Exploring the interplay between metacognitive awareness and EFL writing performance: A path analysis approach. Language Teaching Research; 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13621688221075796]
Rusinovci, X. (2015). Teaching writing through process-genre based approach. US-China Education Review A, 5(10), 699–705. https://doi.org/10.17265/2161-623X/2015.10.006
Sahebkheir, F. The role of self-assessment guide on improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing: The portfolio approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature; 2018; 7,
Sintayani, NL; Adnyayanti, NLPE. Analysis of self-assessment effect on EFL students’ speaking performance. Journal of Educational Study; 2022; 2,
Sohrabi, Z; Ghanbari, N; Abbasi, A. Iranian EFL teachers’ perceptions of writing assessment literacy: A countrywide study. Language Testing in Asia; 2022; 12,
Sun, T; Wang, C. College students’ writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulated learning strategies in learning English as a foreign language. System; 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102221]
Takarroucht, K. (2022). The effect of self-assessment on the development of EFL writing self-efficacy: A case of Algerian higher education. International Journal of Language Education, 6(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v6i2.22065
Taufik, Moh.; Cahyono, BY. Developing EFL students’ writing skill through self-assessment integrated with e-portfolio. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education); 2020; 6,
Taufiqulloh. (2015). Using a self-assessment model in an Indonesian EFL writing class. THAITESOL Journal, 28(1), 116–138. Retrieved from http://thailandtesol.org/data/doc/THAITESOL%20Journal%20Vol%2028%20No%201%20June%202015_complete.pdf
Teng, MF; Wang, C; Zhang, LJ. Assessing self-regulatory writing strategies and their predictive effects on young EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessing Writing; 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100573]
Teng, M. F., & Ying, Z. (2023). Assessing self-regulated writing strategies, self-efficacy, task complexity, and performance in English academic writing. Assessing Writing, 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100728
Teng, LS. Conceptualizing the relations between metacognitive knowledge and self-regulated writing strategies in EFL learners. Reading and Writing; 2022; 35,
Teng, LS; Zhang, LJ. Empowering learners in the second language writing classroom: The value of self-regulated learning. English Language Teaching Journal; 2020; 74,
Teng, MF; Yue, M. Metacognitive writing strategies, critical thinking skills, and academic writing performance: A structural equation modeling approach. Metacognition and Learning; 2023; 18,
Umamah, A; Khoiri, N. El; Widiati, U; Wulyani, AN. EFL university students’ self-regulated writing strategies: The role of individual differences. Journal of Language and Education; 2022; 8,
Vangah, F. P. (2013). Effect of self-assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ reading skill and vocabulary Knowledge. International Research Journal of Applied Sciences, 4(3), 676–680. https://www.europub.co.uk/articles/-A-5368
Wang, X; Ma, J; Li, X; Shen, X. Validation of self-regulated writing strategies for advanced EFL learners in China: A structural equation modeling analysis. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education; 2023; 13,
Yusuf, Y. Q., & Widyaningsih, S. W. (2023). Fostering students' writing strategies through reflective self-assessment in an Indonesian EFL context. International Journal of Instruction, 16(1), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.1618a
Zhang, R; Zhang, D. Exploring EFL students' writing strategy use and performance: The role of self-regulated learning. TESOL Quarterly; 2020; 54,
Zhang, XS; Zhang, LJ. Sustaining learners’ writing development: Effects of using self-assessment on their foreign language writing performance and rating accuracy. Sustainability (Switzerland); 2022; 14,
Zimmerman, BJ. Boekaerts, M; Pintrich, PR; Zeidner, M. Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. Handbook of self-regulation; 2000; Academic Press: pp. 13-39.
© The Author(s) 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.