System 129 (2025) 103603

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

The effects of two self-regulated learning interventions on Chinese

EFL students’ self-regulated writing-strategy use, motivational
beliefs, and writing performance☆
Yining Zhang a,*, Yuantzu Chieh b
a
Tsinghua University, Tsinghua University 204 Wennan Building, Beijing, 100084, China
b
Tsinghua University High School-Jiaxing 2776 Wanxing Road, Nanhu District, Jiaxing, Zhejiang, 314051, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Researchers in the field of second-language (L2) writing have recommended the integration of
Self-regulated learning intervention self-regulated learning (SRL) interventions into standard L2 writing instruction. This quasi-
Reflective journal experimental study explores the effects of two SRL interventions – reflective journals only, and
Writing portfolio
reflective journals plus writing portfolios – on L2 writers’ self-regulated strategy use, motivational
Self-regulated writing strategy
Motivation
beliefs, and writing performance. The data were collected twice among 105 freshmen enrolled in
L2 writing an English-writing course in China. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of three
conditions: a control group (n = 35), a journal group (n = 35), and a portfolio with journal group
(n = 35). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to examine changes in the
measured variables within and across groups. After the intervention, the participants of both
experimental conditions exhibited significantly better self-regulated writing-strategy use, moti­
vational beliefs, and writing performance than the control group did. Of the two interventions,
however, the one that included writing portfolios was more effective at promoting these
measured constructs, and was superior not only at helping learners monitor their learning, but
also at encouraging them to take responsibility for the whole learning process cognitively, met­
acognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally. As well as shedding light on the specific effects of
these SRL interventions, this study delineates the nuanced differences between them. Pedagogical
recommendations about how best to utilize these interventions are also provided.

1. Introduction

In recent years, there has been a growing recognition that second-/foreign-language (L2) learners need to become more self-
regulated writers of their target languages (e.g., Shen & Wang, 2024; Sun et al., 2022; Teng, 2022; Wang et al., 2024; Xu et al.,
2024; Yang et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2024). Although this consensus aligns well with the crucial role of self-regulated learning (SRL) in
helping learners to regulate, monitor, and control their cognition, motivation, and behaviors (Bandura, 1986; Pintrich, 2000; Zim­
merman, 1990, 2008), results from the above-cited L2 writing studies and others (e.g., Sun & Wang, 2020) suggest that not all L2

This article is part of a special issue entitled: Instructions for SRL published in System.☆ This project is supported by Tsinghua University
Initiative Scientific Research Program, 2023THZWJC33, “A Study on the Education Model in English Writing Courses for Effectively Telling the
Chinese Story.”
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y. Zhang), [email protected] (Y. Chieh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103603
Received 28 July 2023; Received in revised form 8 January 2025; Accepted 16 January 2025
Available online 18 January 2025
0346-251X/© 2025 Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

learners are equipped with, or even aware of, such abilities. Given that SRL is a dynamic and constructive process shaped by contextual
factors (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 1990, 2008) and can be effectively developed through deliberate practice (Winne, 2005; Zim­
merman, 2008), it is important to implement certain interventions to help students become better self-regulated writers.
So far, a number of L2 writing studies have advocated for the inclusion of SRL interventions alongside regular L2 writing instruction
(e.g., Akhmedjanova & Moeyaert, 2022; Bai & Wang, 2021; Shen & Bai, 2024; Sun et al., 2022; Teng, 2022; Teng & Zhang, 2020;
Zhang et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2024). To evaluate the impact of the interventions, prior studies have predominantly focused on
assessing students’ writing performance or isolated self-regulation skills, while neglecting to examine the aspects of self-regulation that
may be especially important to L2 writing in a holistic manner. Because SRL refers to “both the self-directiveness processes and
self-beliefs” involved in a person’s learning (Zimmerman, 2008, p. 166), it is important to not only study the effects of interventions on
students’ writing performance, but also the self-regulated strategies they employ during writing (Pintrich, 2000; Teng & Zhang, 2016a,
2016b) and their motivational beliefs – encompassing self-efficacy and intrinsic goal orientation – that help to promote proactive
learning (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2008; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011).
Apart from evaluating outcomes holistically, our focus on the interventions themselves centers on two distinct SRL practices:
reflective journaling and writing portfolios. The former comprises students writing documents “as they think about various concepts,
events, or interactions over a period of time for the purposes of gaining insights into self-awareness and learning” (Thorpe, 2004, p.
328). The latter involves them producing “a collection of texts […] over a defined period of time to the specifications of a particular
context” (Hamp-Lyons, 1991, p. 262). Specifically, the portfolio assessment utilized in this study can be classified as a working
portfolio, also known as a developmental portfolio. In addition to its inclusion of reflective journals, it creates a dynamic record of
students’ writing processes and progress that typically comprises collections of students’ writing artifacts produced over time, such as
multiple drafts, revisions, and reflections (Lam, 2020). Its overarching aim is to highlight the failures and successes one experiences
during learning to facilitate the making of plans to adjust such learning through self-assessment and reflection (Kicken et al., 2009).
We selected these two practices not only because they are commonly used and widely recognized in L2 teaching (Hemmati &
Soltanpour, 2012, p. p16), but also because of their heavy emphasis on learners’ reflection: a crucial factor in SRL development
(Pintrich, 2000; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000; Zimmerman, 2008; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011). Perhaps more importantly, because the
effectiveness of SRL interventions may vary by activity type (Akhmedjanova & Moeyaert, 2022; Chen, 2022; Winne, 2005), little is
known about whether different intervention practices function in a similar manner, differ sharply from each other, or exhibit over­
lapping characteristics. Most SRL intervention studies have overlooked this variability, often presenting one experimental group in
contrast to a control group (e.g., Zhang et al., 2022). However, recognizing the potential for variability is crucial, as it can enable
instructors to select the most suitable option for accommodating contextual and individual differences in course planning (Lam, 2022).
Moreover, from a methodological standpoint, previous studies have tended to examine the effects of SRL interventions qualitatively,
through students’ self-reported perceptions (e.g., Kessler, 2021; Yoshihara et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022). Therefore, a rigorous
pre-test/post-test experimental design with a control group will be required if we are to ascertain whether the observed effects are truly
ascribable to these pedagogical practices.
Lastly, we were particularly interested in studying SRL intervention effects among Chinese students, because 1) China has one of
the largest populations of English-language learners globally (Liu, 2022); and 2) Chinese students have been found to encounter
difficulties in SRL and to demonstrate limited utilization of SRL-related strategies (Shen & Bai, 2022; Sun & Wang, 2020), particularly
in L2 writing (Shen & Bai, 2024; Shen & Wang, 2024; Zhang et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2024).
Therefore, the overall purpose of this study is to examine the impact of two SRL interventions (i.e., journaling and portfolio-writing
with journaling) on Chinese L2 English writers’ self-regulated strategy use, motivational beliefs, and writing performance over one
semester, relative to each other and to a control group. Its research questions are.
RQ1. . Did L2 learners in each of the three conditions show significant improvement over the semester in their a) self-regulated
writing-strategy use, b) motivational beliefs, and/or c) writing performance?
RQ2. . At the end of the semester, were there any significant inter-group differences in a) self-regulated writing-strategy use, b)
motivational beliefs, and/or c) writing performance?

2. Literature review

This literature review aims, in the first instance, to set forth the theoretical framework for this study, i.e., SRL in L2 writing from a
social-cognitive perspective. Secondly, it reviews the current state of the scholarly literature on reflective journal writing and writing
portfolios as tools for L2 teaching and learning.

2.1. Self-regulated learning in second-/foreign-language writing from a social-cognitive perspective

Grounded in the social-cognitive perspective, which emphasizes the dynamic interaction between personal factors (such as beliefs,
motivation, and goals), behavioral factors (the strategies learners use), and environmental factors (such as feedback and social in­
teractions) (Bandura, 1986), the core of this study’s theoretical framework is Zimmerman’s (2000) Cyclical Phase Model. It emphasizes
the importance of the personal feedback loop, wherein learners actively monitor their progress, compare it to their goals, and adjust
their strategies accordingly. This feedback loop reiterates the interdependence among the three phases of learning – i.e., forethought,
performance, and self-reflection – while encompassing learners’ expression of motivational beliefs, interaction with contextual factors,
and employment of various SRL strategies (Zimmerman, 2000). Because SRL has the properties of a skill (Winne, 2005; Zimmerman,

2
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

2008), building it has the potential to improve learners’ motivational beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy and intrinsic goals) while facilitating
their employment of diverse strategies for self-regulating learning across cognitive, motivational, behavioral, and contextual domains
(Pintrich, 2000).
Previous studies suggested that L2 writing is itself an SRL process that places high demand on learners’ regulation of writing
through task-related processes, at three levels: cognitive (e.g., forming ideas, making outlines, writing drafts, revising), metacognitive
(e.g., evaluating, monitoring), and motivational (e.g., enhancing interest, mastery-oriented learning) (e.g., Csizér & Tankó, 2017; Shen
& Bai, 2024; Shen & Wang, 2024; Teng & Zhang, 2018; Zhu et al., 2024). Thus, we situate L2 self-regulated writing as a dynamic
interplay among behavior, cognitive, personal, and environmental factors. We also recognize L2 self-regulated writing as a
multi-phase, multi-dimensional, and multi-means process of learning through which learners set goals for, monitor, and regulate their
cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, behavioral, and environmental processes to achieve better learning outcomes.
From this viewpoint, shaping students into self-regulated learners requires that they be taught to deploy various self-regulation
strategies actively and effectively (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). Such strategies, as Zimmerman (1990) noted, are “actions and
processes directed at the acquisition of information or skills that involve agency, purpose, and instrumentality perceptions” (p. 5).
Notwithstanding fruitful outcomes in self-regulated strategy use in general, there has been a lack of studies specifically focusing on
self-regulated writing-strategy use in the context of L2 learning. This may be attributable to the complexed and multifaceted nature of
self-regulated writing strategies, thus making operationalizing and measuring these constructs challenging. A milestone in that strand
of work, by Teng and Zhang (2016a, 2016b), 2020), conceptualized self-regulated writing strategy under the SRL framework and on
that basis developed and validated the Writing Strategies for Motivational Regulation Questionnaire. The self-regulated writing
strategies we elected to focus on in the present study were adopted from their works.
When relating self-regulated writing strategies to the three cyclical phases of SRL, a number of previous studies (Shen & Bai, 2024;
Shen & Wang, 2024) indicated that the forethought phase of learning is most closely associated with metacognitive self-regulation
such as goal setting, motivational self-regulation, and interest enhancement. The same phase also reflects one’s motivational be­
liefs, including self-efficacy and goal orientation. In the performance phase of learning, meanwhile, processes of self-control and
self-observation are more multi-dimensional, including text-generating at the cognitive level, self-monitoring at the metacognitive
level, emotional control at the motivational level, and help seeking at the social-behavioral level. The final phase, self-reflection, also
involves regulation at multiple levels, notably self-evaluation (metacognitive) and peer feedback (social-behavioral).
In addition, this theoretical framework holds that contextual factors play a crucial role in SRL by guiding and influencing one’s
strategic processes (Pintrich, 2000). The next two subsections provide a detailed discussion of our two focal SRL interventions, which
are among the most widely used in L2 teaching and learning (Hemmati & Soltanpour, 2012, p. p16).

2.2. Reflective journal writing in second-/foreign-language learning

Reflection serves as a key mechanism for learners’ monitoring and evaluation of their progress, their identification of areas for
improvement, and their setting of goals for future learning endeavors (Zimmerman, 1990, 2008). A key benefit of writing a reflective
journal is therefore the development of reflective awareness, particularly in relation to the metacognitive monitoring of one’s own
learning process (e.g., Ahmed, 2020; Alabidi et al., 2022; Chang & Lin, 2014; Hussein, 2018; Hussein et al., 2020; Kessler, 2021;
Ramadhanti & Yanda, 2024; Sudirman et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022). Another strategy falling under the rubric of metacognitive
self-regulated strategy use, idea planning, also appears to be enhanced by reflective-journal writing (Chang & Lin, 2014; Sudirman
et al., 2021).
While the primary benefit of utilizing reflective journals lies in their capacity to enhance metacognitive awareness, research
regarding its impact on other aspects of SRL strategies were limited and fragmented. EFL learners also use reflective journals for
cognitive knowledge construction, exam preparation, and vocabulary application (Ahmed, 2020; Alharbi, 2024; Bentley & Shoffner,
2024; Chang & Lin, 2014) and to articulate procedural steps and causal connections (Sudirman et al., 2021). Reflective journals have
also been found to foster greater interest in L2 learning (Alabidi et al., 2022), facilitate student-instructor dialogue and knowledge
exchange (Ahmed, 2020), and formulate a caring learning environment (Bentley & Shoffner, 2024). Nevertheless, research regarding
reflective-journal writing’s impact on non-metacognitive SRL strategy use has been limited and fragmentary, especially in comparison
to the deluge of studies of its metacognitive side.
Meanwhile, the use of reflective journal in L2 teaching is not always promising. For example, Ahmed (2020) reported that Qatari
EFL students struggled to elaborate on learning in reflective journals. Akhmedjanova and Moeyaert (2022) observed reflective jour­
naling to have a small positive effect on Southeast Asian EFL students’ writing performance, but not on their SRL skills. In addition,
studies conducted in various cultural contexts have documented students’ failure to recognize the benefits of writing reflective
journals, and even their negative perceptions of journaling tasks as too frequent, burdensome, and/or annoying (e.g., Akhmedjanova &
Moeyaert, 2022; Alharbi, 2024; Zhang et al., 2022).
Based on the above findings, we can conclude that in general, reflective journaling is favored as an effective pedagogical practice,
but that there are discrepancies in its impact on specific aspects of EFL learning. One possible reason for such discrepancies is variation
in learners’ EFL proficiency levels. This idea was implicit in Farahian et al.’s (2021) speculation that learners’ low L2 proficiency
constrained their engagement in higher levels of reflection. Explicitly, it was proposed by Yabukoshi (2020), based on a finding that
Japanese EFL learners who exhibited strong SRL skills also demonstrated high levels of EFL proficiency. Similarly, Zhang et al. (2022),
based on their examination of 112 reflective-journal entries, reported that high- and low-proficiency groups differed in both the
quantity and the quality of their SRL writing-strategy use. Therefore, we deem it crucial to control for students’ language-proficiency
levels when testing the effects of reflective journaling.

3
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

Another critique is that most of these studies drew their conclusions regarding the effect of reflective journaling from small
numbers of interviews; i.e., more than half of the studies had sample sizes of less than 10. We therefore felt it was important to
investigate the effects of reflective journaling SRL interventions with a larger number of participants and using quasi-experimental
methods.

2.3. The use of writing portfolios in second-/foreign language learning

As briefly noted above, the type of portfolio we adopted in this study was the working portfolio, the primary purpose of which is
documenting its user’s writing-process growth over time. This is generally achieved through the submission of a selection of written
work from different time points, along with reflections on areas where improvement has occurred and should occur (Lam, 2020). To
benefit from completing a portfolio-preparation task, students need to be conscious of its purposes, willing to collaborate with peers
and teachers, and able to use metacognition and critical thinking; as such, these tasks dovetail well with SRL-based L2 instruction’s
emphases on goal setting, progress monitoring, and feedback handling (Farahian et al., 2021; Lam, 2022).
An extensive body of research has shown that writing portfolios can promote not only people’s writing performance, but also their
motivational beliefs such as self-efficacy and the intrinsic value of learning (e.g., Arslan & Gümüş, 2020; Aygün & Aydın, 2016; Barrot,
2021; Chang et al., 2013; Farahian & Avarzamani, 2018; Fathi & Rahimi, 2024; Lam, 2022; Pourdana & Tavassoli, 2022; Tyas, 2020).
Nevertheless, writing portfolios’ effects on self-regulation strategy use in writing have hardly ever been explored. This critical research
gap is in part due to researchers’ frequent treatment of self-regulation strategy use as a unidimensional ability. For example, a recent
review by Lam (2022) noted that portfolios “could help develop students’ self-regulation of learning in terms of improved post-writing
test scores, enhanced audience awareness, academic writing performance (e.g., improved fluency), and peer feedback skills” (p. 5).
However, it remains unclear how, and to what degree, portfolios affect the use of specific self-regulated writing strategies. Similarly,
when Karami et al. (2019) evaluated the impact of portfolios on SRL in a college-level L2 writing course, they presented a composite
score comprising six aspects of self-regulation strategy use, without detailing the differences among these indicators.
In addition to treating SRL as a unidimensional ability, various studies have lacked clear frameworks for the relation of specific
types of SRL learning to L2 writing. As noted earlier, by far the most-researched aspect of strategy use is its metacognitive side (e.g.,
Aygün & Aydın, 2016; Farahian & Avarzamani, 2018; Farahian et al., 2021). However, the relatively few studies to have focused on its
cognitive side have reported that EFL learners using writing portfolios saw improvement in their focus, elaboration, organization,
conventions, and vocabulary (Arslan & Gümüş, 2020; Ghoorchaei & Tavakoli, 2020; Ma’arif et al., 2021). In terms of behavioral
regulation, students writing portfolios have reported greater involvement in peer learning (Tyas, 2020) and improved feedback
handling (Ma’arif et al., 2021). However, in general, studies of the effects of portfolio writing on either the social-behavioral or
motivational-regulation dimensions of L2 writing-strategy use have been quite limited, notwithstanding scholars’ ongoing stress on the
importance of both these dimensions (e.g., Lam, 2022; Segaran & Hasim, 2021).
Finally, direct scholarly comparisons between the impacts of working portfolios and reflective journals have been rare to say the
least. To our knowledge, Hemmati and Soltanpour’s (2012, p. p16) has been the only previous one to date. Based on our review of that
work, and of prior studies of each intervention separately, the greatest contrast between them is likely related to their respective
primary purposes. That is, reflective journals place considerable emphasis on fostering metacognitive awareness, whereas working
portfolios help learners take more holistic and deliberate responsibility for their own learning. A second key distinction is that, as
compared with reflective journals, writing portfolios offer learners more extended practice and reflection and a more tangible record of
their progress (Farahian & Avarzamani, 2018). And a third distinction is that reflective journals lack peer engagement, typically having
only the teacher as their audience; whereas portfolios often involve peers as readers (Shepherd, 2015), and are more likely to
incorporate peer feedback (Farahian & Avarzamani, 2018), or even peer pressure to some extent (Barrot, 2021).
In the only empirical research to directly compare these two practices, Hemmati and Soltanpour (2012, p. p16) found that, as
compared to the journal group, the portfolio group led to superior grammatical accuracy and better overall writing performance. The
authors further attributed this difference to the “reflection with support of a mentor or collaborator as well as the efficacy of intentional
learning over incidental […] and explicit learning over implicit” (p. 16). While the findings of this lone study provide valuable insights,
generalized conclusions cannot be drawn from them alone. Further research conducted in diverse contexts is essential to building a
comprehensive understanding of the comparative effects of these two common pedagogical practices.
In sum, we hypothesize that both those practices may effectively promote SRL, but with different magnitudes: Comparing with
reflective journals, we expect that working portfolios are likely to help students become more motivated, earn better scores, perform
better at setting goals, make more objective self-assessments, handle feedback more effectively, and be more willing to seek help.

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants and context

The present study’s participants were 105 EFL learners (71 female and 34 male) enrolled in three parallel iterations of the same
first-year writing course at a university in China. They were randomly assigned to three equally sized conditions (each n = 35): a
control group, a journal group, and a portfolio with journal group. The participants’ average age was 18.2 (SD = .64). The course, titled
Critical Thinking and Writing, had four key aims: 1) to develop its students’ critical-thinking ability, 2) to engage them in critical
analysis and arguments, 3) to familiarize them with inquiry-oriented research, and 4) to develop their ability to write academic En­
glish. It lasted 16 weeks, with two 90-min sessions per week. The course’s final writing product was an eight to 10-page paper on a

4
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

contemporary issue in China that the student found personally interesting. In completing it, the students were required to ask at least
one research question, review the relevant literature, and use reasoning to answer the question(s). These stages of composing the final
paper were treated as separate assignments, e.g., annotations of literature, introduction-writing, and so on (for a complete list, see
Table 1).

3.2. Instruments

3.2.1. Questionnaire
We developed a research questionnaire that consisted of three parts. The first asked for the participants’ student ID, age, gender,
and enrollment information. The second part consisted of 35 items on self-regulated writing-strategy use, all responded to on a five-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Of those 35 items, the 21 that measured cognitive,
metacognitive, and social-behavioral strategy use were adapted from the Writing Strategies for Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire
developed by Teng and Zhang (2016a, 2016b), 2020). Specifically, cognitive strategies were reflected by text processing (five items, α =
.85). Course memory, an original sub-category of cognitive strategies, was removed from our version of the questionnaire due to the lack
of emphasis on memorization in our research context. Metacognitive strategies were categorized into goal-oriented monitoring (six
items, α = .86) and idea planning (three items, α = .72). Social-behavioral strategies were subdivided into peer learning (three items, α =
.81) and feedback handling (four items, α = .67). The remaining 14 items in part two of the questionnaire, all covering
motivational-regulation strategy, were adapted from Teng and Zhang (2016a, 2016b). They were performance self-talk (four items, α =
.82); mastery-self-talk (three items, α = .76); emotional control (three items, α = .55); and interest enhancement (four items, α = .75).
Lastly, the third part of the questionnaire included four items about self-efficacy (α = .81) and four on intrinsic goal-orientation (α =
.76) in L2 writing. All were adapted from Pintrich et al. (1991) and answered on the same five-point Likert scale described above.

3.2.2. Writing grade

The participants’ writing grades were collected at two time-points: 1) in the second week of the semester, when they were asked to
submit their first essay, an article critique; and 2) at the end of the semester, when they were asked to submit their final course essay.
Evaluation of their writing performance followed a pre-existing course rubric (see Appendix) that evaluated writing in five aspects.
These were disciplinary content understanding, quality of argument, use of sources, responsiveness to the question, and clarity/focus
of writing. An equal weight of 20% was assigned to each aspect, and within each of them there were four possible grades. From high to
low, these were “strong”, “adequate”, “limited”, and “underdeveloped”. All grades were given by the same instructor, who followed
standardized protocols for instruction and grading.
It is important to note that this instructor was also one of the authors in this study. To mitigate potential biases and ensure the
integrity of the research, efforts were made to establish clear boundaries between that researcher’s roles as an instructor and as a
researcher. To further ensure the reliability of the evaluation, we invited an experienced EFL teacher with a doctoral degree in Applied

Table 1
Learning tasks for each condition.
Control group Journal group Portfolio with journal group

Week 1 Questionnaire Questionnaire Introduction to writing portfolios

Questionnaire
Week 2 Article critique (score used for pre-intervention Article critique (score used for pre-intervention Article critique (score used for pre-intervention
grade) grade) grade)
Week 6 Assignment 1 (introduction) Assignment 1 (introduction) Assignment 1 (introduction)
Week 7 ​ First reflective journal entry First reflective journal entry
Feedback on the reflective journal Feedback on the reflective journal
Week 8 Assignment 2 (reading annotation) Assignment 2 (reading annotation) Assignment 2 (reading annotation)
Mid-term portfolio check
Week 9 Peer review Peer review Peer review
Feedback on the portfolio
Week Assignment 3 (outline) Assignment 3 (outline) Assignment 3 (outline)
10
Week Peer review Peer review Peer review
11 Second reflective journal entry Second reflective journal entry
Feedback on the reflective journal Feedback on the reflective journal
Week Assignment 4 (essay draft) Assignment 4 (essay draft) Assignment 4 (essay draft)
13
Week Peer review Peer review Peer review
14
Week 15
Week Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire
16 Final essay (score used for post-intervention Final essay (score used for post-intervention Final essay (score used for post-intervention
grade) grade) grade)
Third reflective journal entry Third reflective journal entry
Final portfolio submission

Note. The members of the portfolio with journal group ongoingly gathered evidence of the work they were doing during the course.

5
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

Linguistics, who was not a member of the research team, to code 42 essays written in the second week (representing 40% of the total
essays, with 14 randomly selected from each of the three conditions) and 42 final course essays (also representing 40% of the total
essays, again with 14 randomly selected from each of the three conditions). The inter-rater reliabilities for all five writing aspects were
acceptable: i.e., rt1 = .92, rt2 = .87 for disciplinary content understanding; rt1 = .91, rt2 = .92 for quality of argument; rt1 = .92, rt2 = .93
for use of sources; rt1 = .89, rt2 = .92 for responsiveness to the question; and rt1 = .90, rt2 = .91 for clarity/focus of writing. In other
words, the internal and external raters reached consensus on the course instructor’s estimations of the students’ writing performance.
Thus, the grades originally assigned by the instructor were used as our indicator of such performance.

3.3. Conditions

Table 1 lists the learning tasks for each condition. Apart from the reflective journal and portfolio components, all other aspects of
the course including its instructional content, study materials, graded writing tasks, and assessments were consistent across the three
conditions. All three conditions were taught by the same instructor who assigned the grades.
Learners in the journal group were asked to submit their reflective journals in weeks 7, 11, and 16 – in each case, one week after
they had submitted a milestone writing assignment (i.e., their introductions in week 6, outlines in week 10, and final drafts in week
16). The instructor prepared explicit reflection prompts for them. For the first two reflective-journal assessments, those prompts were:
1) What are the differences between your first version and your current version of the assignment, and how did your psychological state change
in this process? 2) What are the strengths and weaknesses of your writing? and 3) Which aspects of your future writing will require extra
attention or practice? For the third reflective-journal assessment, on the other hand, the prompts aimed to elicit the students’ reflections
on their semester-long writing experiences. They included: 1) What are the differences between your first version and your final version of
the assignment, and how did your psychological state change in this process? 2) What changes did the repeated procedure of “writing-revising-
writing-revising” bring to your writing and psychological state throughout the semester? 3) What changes did the peer review bring to your
writing and psychological state throughout the semester? and 4) What changes did writing reflective journals bring to your writing and psy­
chological state throughout the semester? To ensure that their feelings were expressed clearly, the learners were told that they could
choose to write their journals either in Chinese or English, and in the event, all of them chose to write in Chinese. No word limits on the
reflective journals were imposed. The students also received feedback from the instructor within two to three days after submitting
their journals.
The participants in the portfolio with journal group were required to submit reflective journals with the same deadlines and
prompts as those in the journal group, and also a comprehensive working portfolio. The latter included a final coversheet listing all
items contained in the portfolio in a clear and systematic manner; required-reading notes; all required assignments; all drafts of the
required assignments; peer-review comments that the person submitting had written to others; peer-review comments that they had
received from others; and the three above-mentioned reflective-journal entries. In addition, the students in this condition were
encouraged to include any other materials they had generated because of the course, such as their reading annotations, their notes to
self about the reading and writing they were doing, notes they had taken in class, and/or any evidence of their discussions of course-
related issues with the instructor or their peers. At the end of the semester, the students were asked to review the contents of their
portfolios and submit their final thoughts about them.

3.4. Procedure

In week 1, all participants were invited to participate the study, and those who volunteered signed a consent form prior to filling out
the questionnaire. We provided clear instructions and explanations to the participants to minimize their chances of misunderstanding
the questions. Additionally, we assured them of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. The baseline/pre-intervention
grade was that of the week 2 writing task, and its post-intervention counterpart was that of the final essay.
As well as submitting the same regular assignments as the control group, the journal group had three extra ones. These were the
reflective-journal entries collected in weeks 7, 11, and 16.
In addition to being provided with all the same course requirements as the journal group, learners in the portfolio with journal
group were informed that one of their major projects during the course would be to prepare and submit a writing portfolio. At the start
of the semester, the instructor explained the portfolio’s definition and functions, followed by its requirements including structures,
evaluation criteria, and submission deadlines. A checklist of what the writing portfolio should contain was also provided at that time.
The portfolio was checked twice, once in week 8, i.e., the middle of the semester, and once in the course’s final week. After the week 8
portfolio submission was completed, the instructor and her teaching assistants reviewed the portfolios together, left comments in them
for the students, and selected several exemplary portfolios to showcase in class the following week. Students were also able to check
one another’s portfolios freely since all portfolios were submitted in the course’s online forum. In week 16, they were required to
submit their final portfolios. Throughout the semester, the instructor kept reminding students that the portfolio project was a process-
oriented endeavor rather than a one-time task. More specifically, they were encouraged to regularly collect their work, organize it
within the portfolio folder, and engage in regular reviews of their progress.

3.5. Data analysis

We first used Shapiro-Wilk tests to confirm whether the collected data met the assumption of normal distribution. This established
that they did not: i.e., the p-values for all measured variables were less than .05. Accordingly, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were then

6
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

conducted to answer our first RQ. To answer our second, we used Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum testing, then applied post-hoc Dunn’s tests
for pairwise comparisons to further pin down the differences between conditions.

4. Results

4.1. Baseline conditions of the three groups

Prior to assessing potential differences within and across groups, we tested whether the three groups were comparable at baseline.
The results suggested that there were no significant inter-group differences in either gender (χ 2 = 1.65, df = 2, p = .438) or age (F =
1.33, df = 2, p = .270).
As shown in Table 2, the three groups also did not exhibit significant baseline differences in the distribution of most scores. The
exceptions were emotional control (H = 6.61, p = .037, η2 = .06; 95% confidence interval [CI] [.05, .08]) and peer learning (H = 7.70, p
= .021, η2 = .08; 95% CI [.05, .10]). In the case of emotional control, the post-hoc Dunn’s test results showed that the portfolio with
journal group exhibited higher scores than both the control group (Z = − 2.31, p = .011, adjusted p = .032) and the journal group (Z =
2.14, p = .016, adjusted p = .049). In the case of peer learning, the control group exhibited a significantly lower score than the portfolio
with journal group (Z = − 2.61, p = .004, adjusted p = .013).

4.2. Within-group changes in self-regulated writing-strategy use, intrinsic goal orientation, self-efficacy, and grades

Table 3 presents descriptive statistics of our nine measured types of self-regulated writing-strategy use, plus intrinsic goal orien­
tation, self-efficacy, and the grades collected in weeks 1 and 16. The results of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests pertaining to changes in these
variables over time are also shown.
The control group received better grades at the post-intervention time-point than at the pre-intervention one, and that change was
significant, V = 108, p = .001, δ = − .50 (95% CI [-.70, − .22]). The same group also showed significant increases in peer learning, V =
159.5, p = .030, δ = − .18 (95% CI [-.43, .09]) and self-efficacy V = 120.5, p = .034, δ = − .27 (95% CI [-.51, .01]), and a significant
decrease in performance self-talk, V = 357.5, p = .031, δ = .18 (95% CI [-.09, .43]).
The journal group’s grades also increased significantly, V = 121.5, p = .013, δ = − .49 (95% CI [-.69, − .21]), as did their emotional
control, V = 99.5, p = .032, δ = − .25 (95% CI [-.48, .02]); goal-oriented monitoring, V = 122, p = .040, δ = − .22 (95% CI [-.46, .05]);
feedback handling, V = 94, p = .037, δ = − .30 (95% CI [-.53, − .03]); and self-efficacy, V = 70, p = .001, δ = − .36 (95% CI [-.58, − .09]).
The portfolio with journal group also achieved a significant increase in its grades, V = 62, p = .000, δ = − .74 (95% CI [-.89, − .47]).
It also significantly increased its interest enhancement, V = 31, p = .000, δ = − .33 (95% CI [-.55, − .06]); text processing, V = 105.5, p =
.046, δ = − .20 (95% CI [-.45, .07]); peer learning, V = 70.5, p = .008, δ = − .28 (95% CI [-.51, − .01]); intrinsic goal orientation, V = 79, p
= .007, δ = − .18 (95% CI [-.43, .09]); idea planning, V = 0, p = .000, δ = − .39 (95% CI [-.60, − .12]); and self-efficacy, V = 70, p = .000,
δ = − .39 (95% CI [-.61, − .12]).

4.3. Inter-group differences in self-regulated writing-strategy use, intrinsic goal orientation, self-efficacy and grades at T2

As shown in Table 4, our motivational-regulation strategy results indicated that there were significant post-intervention inter-
group differences in interest enhancement (χ 2 = 14.44, p = .000, η2 = .14; 95% CI [.10, .18]), motivational self-talk (χ 2 = 6.10, p = .047,
η2 = .06; 95% CI [.04, .07]), and emotional control (χ 2 = 12.03, p = .002, η2 = .12; 95% CI [.09, .15]), but not in performance self-talk.
Given that these groups already differed significantly in their emotional control use at the baseline, we tested the interaction term
between group and time, but this failed to reveal any significant interaction effect (F = 2.12, p = .13). That is, the emotional control
difference among the three groups was too consistent across time to be attributed to our treatment. In addition, the three groups
differed significantly in their feedback handling, χ 2 = 13.40, p = .001, η2 = .13 (95% CI [.10, .17]). Specifically, the control group had a
significantly lower median than either the portfolio with journal group (Z = − 3.25, p adjusted = .003) or the journal group (Z = − 3.08,

Table 2
Baseline comparisons of self-regulated writing-strategy use, intrinsic goal orientation, self-efficacy, and pre-intervention grades across the three
groups (N = 105).
H df p

Self-regulated writing-strategy use Motivational Interest enhancement 2.17 2 .338

Motivational self-talk 3.32 2 .190
Emotional control 6.61 2 .037
Performance self-talk .60 2 .742
Cognitive Text processing 1.59 2 .451
Metacognitive Idea planning 1.72 2 .424
Goal-oriented monitoring 5.26 2 .072
Social-behavioral Peer learning 7.70 2 .021
Feedback handling 5.30 2 .071
Motivational beliefs Intrinsic goal orientation ​ 2.42 2 .299
Self-efficacy ​ .38 2 .827
Pre-intervention grade 2.69 2 .260

7
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

Table 3
Descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon signed-rank test results (n = 35 for each group).
Group T1 T2 V p δ

Self-regulated writing-strategy Motivational Interest enhancement 1 M SD M SD ​ ​ ​

use 4.03 .56 4.01 .57 185.5 .806 ​
2 4.19 .57 4.51 .42 31 .000 − .33
3 4.10 .52 4.27 .48 141 .159 ​
Motivational self-talk 1 4.30 .50 4.19 .54 207.5 .228 ​
2 4.50 .38 4.50 .52 132 .870 ​
3 4.32 .57 4.35 .49 98 .807 ​
Emotional control 1 3.89 .54 3.82 .55 182 .608 ​
2 4.20 .53 4.28 .59 119.5 .389 ​
3 3.90 .53 4.14 .44 99.5 .032 − .25
Performance self-talk 1 3.81 .67 3.58 .70 357.5 .031 .18
2 3.92 .71 3.96 .78 217.5 .999 ​
3 3.94 .59 3.92 .63 244 .818 ​
Cognitive Text processing 1 4.16 .49 4.11 .57 186 .799 ​
2 4.28 .56 4.49 .47 105.5 .046 − .20
3 4.14 .53 4.36 .50 151 .058 ​
Metacognitive Idea planning 1 4.20 .49 4.30 .43 149.5 .347 ​
2 4.30 .50 4.65 .44 0 .000 − .39
3 4.35 .46 4.50 .47 112 .107 ​
Goal-oriented 1 3.76 .63 3.81 .57 216.5 .749 ​
monitoring 2 4.07 .46 4.20 .63 111.5 .064 ​
3 3.75 .62 4.00 .58 122 .040 − .22
Social-behavioral Peer learning 1 3.63 .79 3.86 .66 159.5 .030 − .18
2 4.00 .90 4.42 .60 70.5 .008 − .28
3 4.04 .57 4.12 .59 155.5 .426 ​
Feedback handling 1 4.36 .39 4.37 .43 157 .891 ​
2 4.55 .48 4.69 .39 102.5 .061 ​
3 4.49 .39 4.68 .39 94 .037 − .30
Self-regulated writing-strategy Intrinsic goal 1 3.76 .62 3.71 .62 207.5 .416 ​
use orientation 2 3.96 .59 4.18 .57 79 .007 − .18
3 3.97 .56 4.11 .59 107.5 .140 ​
Self-efficacy 1 3.31 .63 3.52 .45 120.5 .034 − .27
2 3.40 .70 3.86 .74 70 .000 − .39
3 3.29 .60 3.71 .61 70 .001 − .36
Grade 1 91.06 2.47 93.03 1.42 108 .001 − .50
2 91.17 1.79 93.80 2.65 62 .000 − .74
3 91.89 2.26 93.34 1.29 121.5 .013 − .49

Note. Group 1 is the control group; Group 2, the portfolio with journal group; and Group 3, the journal group. T1 = time-point 1; T2 = time-point 2;
SD = standard deviation.

Table 4
Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test results for all participants at time-point 2 (N = 105).
χ2 df p η2
Self-regulated writing-strategy use Motivational Interest enhancement 14.44 2 .000 .14
Motivational self-talk 6.10 2 .047 .06
Emotional control 12.03 2 .002 .12
Performance self-talk 5.37 2 .068 ​
Cognitive Text processing 8.63 2 .013 .08
Metacognitive Idea planning 10.35 2 .006 .10
Goal-oriented monitoring 6.39 2 .041 .06
Social-behavioral Peer learning 12.85 2 .002 .13
Feedback handling 13.40 2 .001 .13
Motivational beliefs Intrinsic goal orientation 10.83 2 .004 .11
Self-efficacy 6.70 2 .040 .07
11.27 2 .004 .11
Grade

p adjusted = .006). Post-hoc analyses using Dunn’s test (Table 5) further showed that the control group had significantly lower median
interest enhancement (Z = − .38, p adjusted = .000) and motivational self-talk (Z = − 2.46, p adjusted = .042) than the portfolio with
journal group.
Turning to cognitive strategies, the three groups differed significantly in their use of text processing, χ 2 = 8.63, p = .013, η2 = .08
(95% CI [.06, .11]). Further post-hoc analysis confirmed that the control group’s median use of such processing was significantly lower
than the portfolio with journal group’s (Z = − 2.88, adjusted p = .012).
As for metacognitive strategies, we found that the three groups differed significantly in both sub-categories, i.e., idea planning (χ 2 =

8
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

Table 5
Post-hoc Dunn’s test results for the three groups at time-point 2 (n=35 for each group).
Group comparison Z p p adjusted

Self-regulated writing-strategy use Motivational Interest enhancement 1–2 − 3.80 .000 .000
1–3 − 1.80 .071 .214
2–3 1.99 .046 .138
Motivational self-talk 1–2 − 2.46 .014 .042
1–3 − 1.05 .294 .881
2–3 1.41 .158 .475
Cognitive Text processing 1–2 − 2.88 .004 .012
1–3 − 1.95 .051 .153
2–3 .93 .355 1.000
Metacognitive Idea planning 1–2 − 3.19 .001 .004
1–3 − 1.94 .052 .157
2–3 1.25 .211 .633
Goal-oriented monitoring 1–2 − 2.53 .011 .034
1–3 − 1.25 .213 .638
2–3 1.28 .200 .600
Social-behavioral Feedback handling 1–2 − 3.25 .001 .003
1–3 − 3.08 .002 .006
2–3 .17 .867 1.000
Motivational beliefs Intrinsic goal orientation 1–2 − 3.01 .003 .008
1–3 − 2.65 .008 .024
2–3 .36 .715 1.000
Self-efficacy 1–2 − 2.57 .010 .031
1–3 − 1.55 .120 .360
2–3 1.01 .310 .931
Grade 1–2 − 3.18 .001 .004
1–3 − .65 .514 1.000
2–3 2.53 .011 .035

Note. Group 1 is the control group; Group 2 is the portfolio with journal group; and Group 3 is the journal group.

10.35, p = .006, η2 = .10; 95% CI [.07, .13]) and goal-oriented monitoring (χ 2 = 6.39, p = .041, η2 = .06; 95% CI [.05, .08]). Specifically,
the control group had significantly lower medians for idea planning (Z = − 3.19, adjusted p = .004) and goal-oriented monitoring (Z =
− 2.53, adjusted p = .034) than the portfolio with journal group did.
In the sphere of social-behavioral strategies, the three groups differed significantly in their uptake of peer learning (χ 2 = 12.85, p =
.002, η2 = .13; 95% CI [.09, .16]), with the control group’s median significantly lower than the portfolio with journal group’s (χ 2 =
− 3.58, adjusted p = .001). However, given that these groups already differed significantly in their peer learning use at the baseline, we
also tested the interaction term between group and time; but again, this failed to reveal any significant interaction effect (F = 1.71, p =
.186). That is, the peer learning difference between the control and portfolio with journal groups was too consistent across time to be
attributed to our treatment. In addition, the three groups differed significantly in their feedback handling, χ 2 = 13.40, p = .001, η2 = .13
(95% CI [.10, .17]). Specifically, the control group had a significantly lower median for this construct than either the portfolio with
journal group (Z = − 3.25, adjusted p = .003) or the journal group (Z = − 3.08, adjusted p = .006).
The three groups differed significantly in their intrinsic goal orientation (χ 2 = 10.83, p = .004, η2 = .11; 95% CI [.08, .14]) and self-
efficacy (χ 2 = 6.70, p = .035, η2 = .07; 95% CI [.05, .08]). Post-hoc tests further revealed that the control group had significantly lower
medians than the portfolio with journal group for both the former (Z = − 3.01, adjusted p = .008) and the latter (Z = − 2.57, adjusted p
= .031). The control group also had a significantly lower median intrinsic goal orientation than the journal group did (Z = − 2.65,
adjusted p = .024).
Lastly, there were significant inter-group differences in grades (χ 2 = 11.27, p = .004, η2 = .11; 95% CI [.08, .14]), with both the
control group (Z = − 3.18, adjusted p = .004) and the journal group (Z = 2.53, adjusted p = .035) receiving significantly lower grades
than the portfolio with journal group.

5. Discussion

Taken together, our findings underscore that both experimental interventions drove significantly greater improvements in self-
regulated writing strategy use, motivational beliefs, and writing performance as compared to control-group membership. Of the
two, the condition that included the writing-portfolio task was found to promote the measured constructs more effectively. Further
details of our key findings as they relate to the relevant prior literature are discussed below.

5.1. Effects on self-regulated learning

Unlike previous work that treated self-regulated strategy use as a unidimensional ability (e.g., Karami et al., 2019), the present
study showed how the portfolio with journal group experienced significant increases in three distinct writing strategies, i.e., peer
learning, text processing, and idea planning. The same group’s use of the second and third of those three strategies, and of four others, was

9
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

also significantly higher at the end of the semester than the control group’s use of them was. Those other four strategies were interest
enhancement, motivational self-talk, goal-oriented monitoring, and feedback handling. As such, improvement spanned across the moti­
vational, cognitive, metacognitive, and social-behavioral domains of self-regulated writing strategy. Interestingly, however, the
intervention group that only wrote reflective journals significantly outperformed the control group only in its uptake of one strategy,
feedback handling. These findings underscore the usefulness of writing portfolios as tools for comprehensively addressing the intricate
interplay of cognitive, motivational, emotional, and contextual learning factors, as opposed to focusing on narrow aspects of SRL
(Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011). They also largely supported our initial hypothesis that such portfolios may function holistically to help
learners not only become more metacognitively aware, but also to take more responsibility of their own learning. As Dinsmore et al.
(2008) contended, the difference between metacognition and SRL may lie in “what is being monitored or controlled,” a process in
which “metacognition likely emphasizes monitoring and control of cognition, while self-regulation and self-regulated learning
emphasize the monitoring or control of behavior, cognition, or motivation” (p. 404).
It should also be noted that three of the six strategies in which the portfolio with journal group improved more significantly than the
other two groups pertained to the forethought phase of Zimmerman’s (2000) model, and in particular, to its metacognitive
idea-planning and motivational-regulation components. This was in line with our expectations, based on our chosen theoretical
framework. Generally, EFL students are impatient with writing, and tend to skip planning “as they think that they are wasting their
time” (Aygün & Aydın, 2016, p. 207). Against that backdrop, the use of writing portfolios can provide them with a platform for
collecting, storing, reviewing, and evaluating their ongoing efforts to brainstorm and generate ideas for their next writing tasks. The
inclusion of drafts in progress (Tyas, 2020) and others’ concrete and executable feedback (Cheng & Liu, 2022; Dong & Zhan, 2019;
Farahian & Avarzamani, 2018; Vasu et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2024) has been found to reinforce learners’ ability to plan subsequent
drafts. Motivationally, our portfolio intervention helped to promote learners’ interest and developmental motivation, highlighting the
potentially important role of portfolios in process-oriented writing practice. Previous research by Zhao (2010) noted that college
students in China tended to equate learning to write with passing tests, and that this naturally led them to lose interest in L2 writing. To
counter this, research has identified several time-tested approaches for boosting students’ L2 learning interest. These include setting
worthwhile learning goals (Oxford, 1990), providing targeted feedback (Yang et al., 2023; Zhang & Zhang, 2022), fostering supportive
and mediated learning environments (Gao & Hu, 2020; Xu et al., 2024), and allowing choice and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2012). We
suspect that the portfolio-writing exercises in our study naturally integrated these strategies, thereby addressing the concern of lack of
interest in writing. Specifically, the portfolio-writing approach encouraged students to set learning goals for each reflective journal
entry, provided targeted feedback on students’ prepared portfolios, enabled peer feedback on portfolio work, and allowed learners the
leeway to include in their portfolios the work that best represented their progress. These elements collectively created a supportive and
engaging environment, which we suspect helped sustain students’ interest in L2 writing.
Turning to the performance phase of learning, we found that writing-portfolio preparation helped students to develop their
metacognitive monitoring and strategic text-processing skills. As the positive impact of portfolios on metacognitive monitoring has
been extensively documented in prior research (e.g., Farahian & Avarzamani, 2018; Farahian et al., 2021; Lam, 2020, 2022), our most
notable finding in this area concerns the enhancement of self-regulated cognitive-strategy use. That finding aligns well with previous
ones about portfolios’ positive effects on various aspects of L2 writing, including focus, elaboration, organization, conventions, and
vocabulary (Arslan & Gümüş, 2020; Barrot, 2021; Ghoorchaei & Tavakoli, 2020; Ma’arif et al., 2021). However, it diverges markedly
from the results of two studies (Shen & Bai, 2024; Teng & Zhang, 2020) that found no significant improvement in cognitive strategy use
following SRL writing interventions. This discrepancy could have been because, in those two studies, the text-generating strategy was
already being employed by participants in the control group, despite their lack of explicit SRL-based instruction – probably because it is
widely considered a fundamental strategy for L2 writing (Flower & Hayes, 1981). In contrast, our participants’ frequent revisiting of
the materials in their portfolios provided them with additional opportunities to recall linguistic knowledge both inside and outside the
classroom. As such, portfolio practice may offer a distinct advantage when it comes to facilitating cognitive-strategy use, particularly as
compared to reflective journals or other explicit SRL interventions.
Our results also indicated that, within the self-reflection phase of Zimmerman’s (2000) Cyclical Phase Model, the practice of
compiling writing portfolios substantially improved individuals’ ability to handle feedback from others. The larger effect size for
feedback handling observed in the portfolio with journal group, in comparison to the control group, can be attributed to several factors.
First, learners in the former group could freely check one another’s portfolios from the middle of the semester onwards. Second, they
were exposed to exemplary portfolios highlighted by the instructor; and third, they engaged in the process of reading, re-reading, and
reflecting on peer feedback each time they prepared to submit their own portfolios. From a social-cognitive perspective, this phe­
nomenon reflects self-regulation as the reciprocal determinism of people and their environment, mediated through the behavior of
self-reflection (Bandura, 1986). Writing-portfolio preparation, in this context, functions as a “learning-enhancing catalyst” (Lam, 2020,
p. 170), enabling learners to actively engage with their peers and act upon those interactions.
Lastly, concerning motivational beliefs, while both experimental groups experienced a significant increase in self-efficacy, the
portfolio with journal condition’s growth in that area was notably larger, with a large effect size. This finding resonates with prior
research that highlighted portfolios’ role in fostering motivation (Arslan & Gümüş, 2020; Aygün & Aydın, 2016; Farahian & Avar­
zamani, 2018). However, it again diverges from the findings of Teng and Zhang (2020), who reported no significant difference in
self-efficacy between their experimental and control groups on a post-test. In response to Teng and Zhang’s suggestion that self-efficacy
might require a longer duration to manifest than their design allowed, we propose that the tangible nature of a working portfolio may
expedite that process, i.e., make growth in self-efficacy more apparent sooner. Our rationale for this argument is that portfolio tasks
involve personalized scaffolding and iterative instruction (Teng, 2022) as well as opportunities for students to view others’ portfolios
and receive feedback (Shepherd, 2015).

10
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

5.2. Effects on English-writing performance

Both intervention groups significantly outperformed the control group in terms of writing performance. This finding lends further
support to the effectiveness of SRL-related interventions in L2 writing, and in Chinese EFL writing in particular (e.g., Shen & Bai, 2024;
Teng, 2022; Teng & Zhang, 2020; Zhu et al., 2024).
Unlike prior studies that focused primarily on word length as an indicator of writing performance, our assessment centered on
process-genre features, including discourse, rhetorical, and syntactic aspects of L2 writing. Importantly, because the writing tasks in
this study were broadly research-oriented, it helps answer Teng’s (2022) call for more research on the effectiveness of SRL in­
terventions across varied genres of L2 writing. Our identification of large effect sizes aligns well with previous findings of significant
intervention effects across multiple writing genres. More specifically, it implies that within the genre of writing research-oriented
papers, the SRL intervention could also exert a considerable influence on writing performance. Indeed, this finding has important
implications for L2 writing instruction, especially amid China’s ongoing shift from general English education to English for academic
purposes (Zhang, 2024).
Our finding that the portfolio with journal group ended up with significantly higher writing performance than either of the other
two groups confirms the previously reported positive impact of this activity on such performance (e.g., Arslan & Gümüş, 2020; Barrot,
2021; Farahian & Avarzamani, 2018). It might be attributable to the intrinsic differences between the two practices, as discussed
previously. More specifically, we suspect this is because, firstly, the portfolio intervention in this study went beyond the usual goal of
transforming learners into writers with self-awareness and instead sought to make them more self-regulated writers in all aspects
(Hemmati & Soltanpour, 2012, p. p16). Secondly, prolonged and tangible exposure to their own prior work during the collection,
organization, and review stages of compiling a portfolio may contribute to learners’ improved writing performance, by requiring them
to engage deeply with each phase of the learning process (Farahian & Avarzamani, 2018). As Lee (2017) commented, this gives
students a chance to review “concrete, specific information about their progress with reference to the learning goals/success criteria so
that they know how to proceed with their writing” (p. 114). And thirdly, the involvement of peers in the portfolio practice could have
expedited the participants’ writing progress (Fathi & Rahimi, 2024). That is, after students submitted their portfolios for mid-term
evaluation in week 8, the instructor selected several exemplary portfolios to present in class. Additionally, students were able, and
even encouraged, to freely access and review others’ portfolios via an online forum. According to Shepherd (2015), students become
aware of their readership in two ways: 1) that there are real people who will read their work, and 2) who, specifically, those people are.
Thus, to some degree, the portfolio practice conveyed a message to learners that their work would be read or even judged by their
peers. It is through such awareness that novice writers tend to become more active at refining the content, vocabulary, organization,
and sentence structure of their essays to meet the varying preferences of different readers (Barrot, 2021).

5.3. Revisiting the differences between writing portfolios and reflective journals

In the preceding sections, we provided comprehensive information on the portfolio with journal condition’s superiority over the
other two conditions in terms of promoting self-regulated learning and achieving superior writing outcomes. Our findings further
suggest that the inherent differences between the two interventions – notably including their primary purposes, tangibility, and level of
peer involvement – are reflected across all three phases of the cyclical model of L2 self-regulated writing learning.
While not all of the journal group’s SRL variables differed significantly from those of the portfolio with journal group at time point
2, the former did demonstrate a significant within-group increase in three strategies, i.e., emotional control, goal-oriented monitoring, and
feedback handling, with medium effect sizes. Interestingly, those strategies did not improve for the portfolio with journal group. A
possible explanation is that these three strategies came into play when learners sought to achieve specific goals or encountered specific
hurdles in their learning journeys. For instance, they could have employed emotional control when they needed to manage negative
emotions, goal-oriented monitoring when they sought to track their progress, and feedback handling when endeavoring to address
writing problems highlighted in the feedback they received (Alharbi, 2024; Shen & Wang, 2024; Wang et al., 2024; Zhu et al., 2024).
Given the demanding nature of these three strategies, and the emotional aspect inherent in reflection – it being not merely a cognitive
process but also involving strong emotions (Bentley & Shoffner, 2024; Harrison et al., 2005; Ramadhanti & Yanda, 2024) – it is
plausible that reflective journals served as a primary emotional outlet for students, thereby amplifying the effects of this learning
activity. In the portfolio with journal condition, which involved more assignments and thus a greater overall time commitment (see
also Ghoorchaei & Tavakoli, 2020), the reflective-journal component may have been overshadowed by other portfolio components.
However, this hypothesis warrants further investigation through studies with larger sample sizes and more targeted research designs.
Lastly, it is also important to revisit the results regarding within- and between-group differences. Several SRL strategy-use and
motivational-belief indicators improved significantly within each experimental condition, but did not display significant inter-group
differences at the end of the semester. This outcome is understandable, as the differences in effectiveness between the two in­
terventions may not have been substantial enough to achieve statistical significance, especially given the relatively small sample size in
each group. Moreover, it is conceivable that one intervention group had a higher mean value at time point 1 while the other’s had a
higher mean value at time point 2. Nevertheless, within-group differences were still noteworthy. This is particularly relevant to peer
learning and idea planning, insofar as the journal group exhibited higher means for these strategies at time point 1, whereas the portfolio
with journal group had higher means for both at time point 2. Such findings underscore the importance of conducting further analyses
with larger sample sizes and/or exploring qualitative data to gain additional insights.

11
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

6. Conclusion

In response to calls for integrating SRL interventions into L2 instruction in general and L2 writing instruction in specific (e.g.,
Akhmedjanova & Moeyaert, 2022; Shen & Bai, 2024; Sun et al., 2022; Teng & Zhang, 2020; Yang et al., 2024; Zhu et al., 2024), the
current quasi-experimental study was designed to test the effects of two SRL interventions – i.e., reflective journal only and writing
portfolio with reflective journal – on L2 writers’ self-regulated strategy use, motivational beliefs, and writing performance. Overall,
both interventions were associated with significant improvements in learners’ self-regulated writing-strategy use, motivational beliefs,
and writing performance when compared to the control group. In addition, writing portfolios was found more effective at promoting
the measured constructs, showing its superiority over reflective journaling in helping learners not only to monitor their learning, but
also to take responsibility for the whole learning process cognitively, metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally.
The key limitations of this study are as follows. First, the sample size in each group (n = 35) was relatively small, primarily due to
the enrolment policy of the focal course. Future studies could consider expanding their sample sizes to enhance the generalizability of
their findings. Second, one of the researchers also acted as the course instructor, thus potentially introducing an instructor effect. While
measures were taken to mitigate such effect, such as assigning the other author of this paper (who was not the course instructor) as the
data collector, involving all authors in data analysis and interpretation, and inviting an external grader to check grading reliability,
future research should prioritize efforts to minimize any instructor effects that could affect the validity and applicability of its out­
comes. Lastly, our participants were quite homogeneous: first-year English majors from one university in China. Although this will
have lessened the study’s exposure to some confounding variables and increased its internal validity, future intervention studies could
usefully explore participant variations across more diverse ages, proficiency levels, and cultural backgrounds.
This study’s findings have several important implications. First and foremost, L2 writing instructors should look seriously at
integrating SRL interventions such as reflective journaling and/or writing-portfolio preparation into their courses. The interactive,
integrative, and reflective traits of such assignments are likely to help learners not only to develop their writing competency, but also to
equip them with cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and social SRL skills (Bentley & Shoffner, 2024; Shen & Bai, 2024; Shen &
Wang, 2024; Teng & Zhang, 2018; Vasu et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2024). The second key implication is that SRL interventions are only a
means to an end, not a panacea that automatically elicits a high uptake of self-regulation strategies (Lam, 2022). When choosing an SRL
intervention, instructors need not only to replicate its procedures, but also to embed certain functions purposefully (Yang et al., 2024).
For example, enabling students to track and reflect upon their learning progress, to set next-steps goals, or to handle the feedback they
receive in meaningful and adaptive ways. Third, the development of self-regulation is not a “lone, individual, and internal process”
(Lam, 2022, p. 6), but needs to occur side by side with external, co-regulated activities with peers and instructors in a learning
community (Zhu et al., 2024). Last but not least, when designing portfolio assignments, task guidelines need to be clearly focused, and
in particular, should orchestrate challenging moments that require learners to explore, question, analyze, and problem-solve.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Yining Zhang: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis,
Conceptualization. Yuantzu Chieh: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Data curation.

Appendix. Writing rubric

1. Disciplinary Content Understanding

Strong

⁃ Disciplinary content is accurate and (if applicable) represents complexities or tensions in current thinking in the field.
⁃ The paper illustrates a nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the conceptual, theoretical and/or empirical information being
presented.

Adequate

⁃ Disciplinary content is generally accurate and represents current thinking in the field.
⁃ The paper represents understanding of the conceptual, theoretical and/or empirical information being presented.
Limited
⁃ Disciplinary content is partially accurate and represents current thinking in the field.
⁃ The paper represents limited understanding of the conceptual, theoretical and/or empirical information being presented.

Underdeveloped

⁃ Disciplinary content is presented inaccurately or misrepresents current thinking in the field.

⁃ The paper demonstrates misunderstanding or oversimplification of the conceptual, theoretical and/or empirical information being
presented.
2. Quality of Argument

12
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

Strong

⁃ The paper provides compelling evidence, reasoning, and support for the case.
⁃ The arguments of the essay hold together with reasoning, coherence, and/or flow appropriate to the genre.
⁃ The paper makes an original and compelling case (e.g., argument, narrative) by providing analysis and/or synthesis.
⁃ The paper thoughtfully integrates multiple (and possibly divergent) perspectives.

Adequate

⁃ The paper provides evidence, reasoning, and/or support for the case appropriate to the genre.
⁃ Arguments are mostly connected in ways appropriate to the genre.
⁃ The paper makes a convincing argument, draws on relevant literature, and/or provides analysis or synthesis that goes beyond
summary or description.
⁃ The paper shows evidence of some consideration of multiple ways of thinking.

Limited

⁃ The paper provides limited evidence, reasoning, and/or support for the case appropriate to the genre.
⁃ Arguments are partially connected in ways appropriate to the genre.
⁃ The paper makes a less convincing argument, draws on relevant literature, and/or provides analysis or synthesis that goes beyond
summary or description.
⁃ The paper shows limited evidence of some consideration of multiple ways of thinking.

Underdeveloped

⁃ The paper does not provide appropriate evidence, reasoning, or support for claims.
⁃ The paper does not go beyond summary or description.
⁃ The paper relies on a narrow range of sources and/or only one perspective. It may appeal only those who already agree (e.g.,
preaches to the choir).
3. Use of Sources

Strong

⁃ The paper draws on a wide array (i.e., research-based, practitioner-based, theoretical, seminal) of appropriate and high-quality
sources.
⁃ The paper uses appropriate quotations effectively and selectively.
⁃ The paper provides appropriate attribution for concepts and ideas.

Adequate

⁃ The paper draws on several appropriate sources.

⁃ The paper includes quotations that are generally suitable for the argument.

Limited

⁃ The paper draws on limited appropriate sources.

⁃ The paper includes limited quotations that are suitable for the argument.
⁃ The paper provides limited attribution for concepts and ideas.

Underdeveloped

⁃ The paper draws on sources that are low quality, out of date, limited in scope, or not clearly related to the topic.
⁃ Quotations are sometimes taken out of context or are provided in place of the author’s own thoughts/analysis.
⁃ The paper fails to cite the source for some of its concepts and ideas.
4. Responsiveness to question

Strong

⁃ The paper addresses every aspect of the question.

Adequate

13
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

⁃ The paper addresses the major points of the question.

Limited

⁃ The paper addresses limited points of the question.

Underdeveloped

⁃ The paper does not respond to the question, or does not address several aspects of the question.
5. Clarity and focus of writing

Strong

⁃ The focus of the paper is clear, explicit, and consistent.

⁃ The writing communicates effectively and eloquently to wide range of readers.
⁃ The paper uses an effective organizational structure that facilitates understanding.
⁃ The paper follows APA guidelines for in-text citations, references, avoiding plagiarism, and bias-free language.

Adequate

⁃ The focus of the paper can be discerned by readers and is mostly sustained throughout.
⁃ The writing communicates effectively to other scholars in the topic area.
⁃ Readers can follow the flow of the paper.
⁃ The paper follows most APA guidelines for in-text citations, references, avoiding plagiarism, and bias-free language.

Limited

⁃ The focus of the paper can be partly discerned by readers and is partly sustained throughout.
⁃ Most of the writing communicates effectively to other scholars in the topic area.
⁃ Readers can follow the flow of the paper in most parts.
⁃ Some places follow APA guidelines for in-text citations, references, avoiding plagiarism, and bias-free language.

Underdeveloped

⁃ The focus of the paper is not clear or consistent

⁃ Parts of the paper are incomprehensible or speak only to a very specialized audience.
⁃ The paper is not easy to follow.
⁃ The paper does not follow APA guidelines for in-text citations, references, avoiding plagiarism, and/or bias-free language.

References

Ahmed, A. M. (2020). From reluctance to addiction: The impact of reflective journals on Qatari undergraduate students’ learning. Reflective Practice, 21, 251–270.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1735328
Akhmedjanova, D., & Moeyaert, M. (2022). Self-regulated writing of English learners: Intervention development. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 841395. https://doi.
org/10.3389/feduc.2022.841395
Alabidi, S., Owais, A., Alabidi, F., & Taani, O. (2022). Exploring the role of reflective diaries as a formative assessment strategy in promoting self-regulated learning
among ESL students. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 27. https://doi.org/10.7275/KW8K-5N11. Article 19.
Alharbi, N. R. (2024). Delving into the depth: Exploring the role of reflective journaling on L2 Saudi students’ academic writing practices. World Journal of English
Language, 14(5), 1. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n5p1
Arslan, R.Ş., & Gümüş, S. N. (2020). The effect of portfolio-keeping on EFL young learners’ writing achievement and their motivation towards writing. Journal of
Narrative and Language Studies, 8(14), 131–150.
Aygün, S., & Aydın, S. (2016). The use of e-portfolios in EFL writing: A review of literature. ELT Research Journal, 5(3), 205–217.
Bai, B., & Wang, J. (2021). Hong Kong secondary students’ self-regulated learning strategy use and English writing: Influences of motivational beliefs. System, 96,
Article 102404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102404
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
Barrot, J. S. (2021). Effects of Facebook-based e-portfolio on ESL learners’ writing performance. Language Culture and Curriculum, 34(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07908318.2020.1745822
Bentley, H., & Shoffner, M. (2024). “You write what you want and what you need”: Incorporating reflective practice in the ELA classroom through caring pedagogy.
Reflective Practice, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2024.2424595
Chang, C. C., Liang, C., & Chen, Y. H. (2013). Is learner self-assessment reliable and valid in a web-based portfolio environment for high school students? Computers &
Education, 60(1), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.012

14
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

Chang, M.-M., & Lin, M.-C. (2014). The effect of reflective learning e-journals on reading comprehension and communication in language learning. Computers &
Education, 71, 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.023
Chen, J. (2022). The effectiveness of self-regulated learning (SRL) interventions on L2 learning achievement, strategy employment and self-efficacy: A meta-analytic
study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1021101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1021101
Cheng, X., & Liu, Y. (2022). Student engagement with teacher written feedback: Insights from low-proficiency and high-proficiency L2 learners. System, 109. Article
102880.
Csizér, K., & Tankó, G. (2017). English majors’ self-regulatory control strategy use in academic writing and its relation to L2 motivation. Applied Linguistics, 38,
386–404. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv033
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology, 1(20), 416–436.
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 20, 391–409.
Dong, X., & Zhan, J. (2019). Impacts of metacognitive instruction on college students’ EFL writing metacognitive features: Knowledge experiences and strategies.
Foreign Language, 16, 62–70.
Farahian, M., & Avarzamani, F. (2018). The impact of portfolio on EFL learners’ metacognition and writing performance. Cogent Education, 5(1), Article 1450918.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1450918
Farahian, M., Avarzamani, F., & Rajabi, Y. (2021). Reflective thinking in an EFL writing course: To what level do portfolios improve reflection in writing? Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 39, Article 100759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100759
Fathi, J., & Rahimi, M. (2024). Electronic writing portfolio in a collaborative writing environment: Its impact on EFL students’ writing performance. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 37(7), 1659–1697. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2097697
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition & Communication, 32(4), 365–387.
Gao, X., & Hu, J. (2020). From language learning strategy research to a sociocultural understanding of self-regulated learning. In M. J. Raya, & F. Vieira (Eds.),
Autonomy in language education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 31–45). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429261336.
Ghoorchaei, B., & Tavakoli, M. (2020). Students’ perceptions about writing portfolios: A case of Iranian EFL students. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 8(1),
21–42. https://doi.org/10.30486/relp.2019.669076
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 241–276). Ablex.
Harrison, J., Lawson, T., & Wortley, A. (2005). Facilitating the professional learning of new teachers through critical reflection on practice during mentoring meetings.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), 267–292.
Hemmati, F., & Soltanpour, F. (2012). A comparison of the effects of reflective learning portfolios and dialogue journal writing on Iranian EFL learners’ accuracy in
writing performance. English Language Teaching, 5(11), p16. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n11p16
Hussein, H. (2018). Examining the effects of reflective journals on students’ growth mindset: A case study of tertiary level EFL students in the United Arab Emirates.
IAFOR Journal of Education, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.6.2.03
Hussein, H. A. R. A., Jamal, D. A. H. A., & Sadi, I. (2020). Students’ reflective journals and creative writing in EFL. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(8),
3484–3495. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080823
Karami, S., Sadighi, F., Bagheri, M. S., & Riasati, M. J. (2019). The impact of application of electronic portfolio on undergraduate English majors’ writing proficiency
and their self-regulated learning. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1319–1334.
Kessler, M. (2021). Supplementing mobile-assisted language learning with reflective journal writing: A case study of duolingo users’ metacognitive awareness.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1968914
Kicken, W., Brand-Gruwel, S., Van Merriënboer, J., & Slot, W. (2009). Design and evaluation of a development portfolio: How to improve students’ self-directed
learning skills. Instructional Science, 37(5), 453–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9058-5
Lam, R. (2020). Writing portfolio assessment in practice: Individual, institutional, and systemic issues. Pedagogies: International Journal, 15(3), 169–182. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1554480X.2019.1696197
Lam, R. (2022). E-Portfolios for self-regulated and co-regulated learning: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1079385. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2022.1079385
Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3924-9_8
Liu, Y. (2022). Chinese parents’ experiences of reading English storybooks to preschool children: A case in guangzhou, China. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 20,
595–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X221105379
Ma’arif, A. S., Abdullah, F., Fatimah, A. S., & Hidayati, A. N. (2021). Portfolio-based assessment in English language learning: Highlighting the students’ perceptions.
Journal of English for Academic, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.25299/jshmic.2021.vol8
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation, research, and
applications (pp. 451–502). Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). University of
Michigan.
Pourdana, N., & Tavassoli, K. (2022). Differential impacts of e-portfolio assessment on language learners’ engagement modes and genre-based writing improvement.
Language Testing in Asia, 12(1), 1–19.
Ramadhanti, D., & Yanda, D. P. (2024). The role of reflective journal in explanatory text writing. International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application, 7(2),
132. https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.v7i2.23511
Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631–649). Academic Press.
Segaran, M. K., & Hasim, Z. (2021). Self-regulated learning through ePortfolio: A meta-analysis. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 18(1), 131–156. https://
doi.org/10.32890/mjli2021.18.1.6
Shen, B., & Bai, B. (2022). Chinese university students’ self-regulated writing strategy use and EFL writing performance: Influences of self-efficacy, gender, and major.
Applied Linguistics Review. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2020-0103
Shen, B., & Bai, B. (2024). Enhancing Chinese university students’ writing performance and self-regulated learning (SRL) writing strategy use through a strategy-based
intervention. System, 122, Article 103249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103249
Shen, B., & Wang, L. (2024). Development and validation of questionnaire for self-regulated learning writing strategies (QSRLWS) for EFL learners. International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0192
Shepherd, R. (2015). FB in FYC: Facebook use among first-year composition students. Computers and Composition, 35, 86–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compcom.2014.12.001
Sudirman, A., Gemilang, A. V., & Kristanto, T. M. A. (2021). The power of reflective journal writing for university students from the EFL perspective. Studies in English
Language and Education, 8(3), 1061–1079. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i3.19105
Sun, T., & Wang, C. (2020). College students’ writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulated learning strategies in learning English as a foreign language. System, 90,
Article 102221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102221
Sun, T., Wang, C., & Wang, Y. (2022). The effectiveness of self-regulated strategy development on improving English writing: Evidence from the last decade. Reading
and Writing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10297-z
Teng, L. S. (2022). Explicit strategy-based instruction in L2 writing contexts: A perspective of self-regulated learning and formative assessment. Assessing Writing, 53,
Article 100645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100645
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016a). A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal,
100(3), 674–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12339

15
Y. Zhang and Y. Chieh System 129 (2025) 103603

Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016b). Fostering strategic learning: The development and validation of the writing strategies for motivational regulation questionnaire
(WSMRQ). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0243-4
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2018). Effects of motivational regulation strategies on writing performance: A mediation model of self-regulated learning of writing in
English as a second/foreign language. Metacognition and Learning, 13(2), 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9171-4
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2020). Empowering learners in the second/foreign language classroom: Can self-regulated learning strategies-based writing instruction
make a difference? Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, Article 100701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100701
Thorpe, K. (2004). Reflective learning journals: From concept to practice. Reflective Practice, 5, 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/1462394042000270655
Tyas, P. A. (2020). Promoting students’ autonomous learning using portfolio assessment in efl writing class. Journal of English Educators Society, 5(1), 75–81. https://
doi.org/10.21070/jees.v5i1.379
Vasu, K. A. P., Mei Fung, Y., Nimehchisalem, V., & Md Rashid, S. (2022). Self-regulated learning development in undergraduate ESL writing classrooms: Teacher
feedback versus self-assessment. RELC Journal, 53(3), 612–626.
Wang, J., Zhou, H., Chen, S., Tong, H., & Yang, Y. (2024). How teachers support secondary school students to become self-regulated learners in technology-enhanced
language learning. System, 123, Article 103313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103313
Winne, P. H. (2005). A perspective on state-of-the-art research on self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33, 559–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-
1280-9
Xu, J., Li, J., & Yang, J. (2024). Self-regulated learning strategies, self-efficacy, and learning engagement of EFL students in smart classrooms: A structural equation
modeling analysis. System, 125, Article 103451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103451
Yang, L., Francoise, Zhang, L. J., & Dixon, H. R. (2023). Understanding the impact of teacher feedback on EFL students’ use of self-regulated writing strategies. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 60, Article 101015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101015
Yang, T., Wang, Y., & Yang, C. (2024). Unravelling the effectiveness of self-regulated language learning intervention on Chinese EFL students’ motivation, strategic
competence and English proficiency: A mixed methods study. British Educational Research Journal, 4061. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4061
Yoshihara, R., Kurata, A., & Yamauchi, A. (2020). Reflective journals to explore struggles and difficulties of novice Japanese EFL university instructors. Reflective
Practice, 21(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2019.1708714
Zhang, Y. (2024). Interaction and knowledge construction in online English teaching: A learning analytics perspective. Routledge.
Zhang, Y., Li, M., Chieh, Y., & Han, S. (2022). On a path to becoming more self-regulated: Reflective journals’ impact on Chinese English as a foreign language
students’ self-regulated writing strategy use. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1042031. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1042031
Zhang, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). The effect of feedback on metacognitive strategy use in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–26. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09588221.2022.2069822
Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom.
Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3–17.
Zhu, J., Yang, Y., & Yan, Z. (2024). Relationships between teacher feedback and English writing proficiency in Chinese students: The mediating effect of writing self-
regulated learning strategies. System, 123, Article 103338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103338
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
13–39). Academic.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 73–101.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0919
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning and performance: An introduction and an overview. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 1–12). Routledge.

16