11 (1), 2023, 1-12
Metacognitive awareness on EFL students’ writing anxiety:
an Indonesian higher education context
Roslaini Roslaini 1, a *, Khodijah Nur Izzati 1, b, Mohd Kasturi Nor Bin Abd Aziz 2, c
1 Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. Dr. Hamka. Jl. Tanah Merdeka No.20, Rambutan, Jakarta, Indonesia
2 Universiti Malaysia Perlis. Exit Lebuhraya Changlun, Malaysia
a [email protected]; b [email protected]; c [email protected]
* Corresponding Author.
Received: 18 July 2022; Revised: 6 August 2022; Accepted: 8 August 2022
Abstract: Various methods or techniques have been used by teachers in teaching writing. However, this skill is still perceived to be very anxious for EFL students in Indonesia. Therefore, this study tries to explore (1) the metacognitive awareness strategies used by students in the learning process; (2) identify the factors that affect students' writing anxiety; and (3) determine the impact of metacognitive awareness strategies on writing anxiety. There are thirty-four students participated to fill out the questionnaire. To analyse the data, descriptive quantitative approach is applied. The research findings show that debugg- ing strategies are the highest strategy used by students in the learning process, with a percentage of 89.22%, followed by planning strategies with the percentage of 85.29%, and information management strategies, with a percentage of 79.41%. While cognitive anxiety is the highest factor affecting students’
writing anxiety with a percentage of 57.98%, somatic anxiety with, a percentage of 57.35%, and avoid- ance anxiety, with a percentage of 25%. In addition, to know the impact of metacognitive awareness strategy on students’ second language writing anxiety uses simple linear regression analysis. It is found that there is no significant impact of the metacognitive awareness strategies on students’ second language writing anxiety.
Keywords: Metacognition, Metacognitive Awareness Strategy, Writing Anxiety.
How to Cite: Roslaini, R., Izzati, K. N., & Aziz, M. K. N. B. A. (2023). Metacognitive awareness on EFL students’ writing anxiety: An Indonesian higher education context. Wiyata Dharma: Jurnal Penelitian Dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 11(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.30738/wd.v11i1.15608
INTRODUCTION
Metacognition is usually related to a learning process. It is defined as a learner’s thinking process in which his knowledge base is employed in controlling his own learning. Nelson (1996) stated that metacognition is an idea about thinking of one’s thinking. In a sense, a learner is conscious of his own learning process. Learners can manage their own learning and find the best way to practice and reinforce what they have learned (Chari et al., 2010). Therefore, it is important for a learner to be better at processing new information or Knowledge (Vandergrift et al., 2006). Thus, it can be said that metacognitive is a leaner’s awareness toward his own learning in managing and controlling new information or Knowledge he acquires.
Based on what metacognition is, it can be inferred that it positively impacts a learner’s learn- ing process, for it can activate learners to manage their own learning in finding new information or Knowledge. The Knowledge they have can support their thinking process, so they know how to improve their comprehension (Wenden, 1998; Stephanou & Mpiontini, 2017). Therefore, it is important to be aware of the thought process to control learning and make learning more effective (Farahian, 2015).
From several pieces of information concerning the importance of metacognition in learning, metacognition knowledge has an important role in supporting learners’ ability to learn a langu- age. It can reinforce learners to select and apply appropriate strategies to achieve an effective language learning (Mahmoudi, 2010). The learners can actively manage and direct their own learning to achieve the learning goals. They can find the best way to practice and support what they have learned; they can monitor, regulate, and reflect on their learning (Chari et al., 2010;
Stewart et al., 2015). Feiz (2016) showed that students who were aware of metacognitive Knowledge had more positive attitudes towards language learning; they can plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning.
Flavell (1979) divides metacognition into metacognitive Knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Metacognitive Knowledge refers to someone's understanding of cognitive pro- cesses that intend to supervise, control, and regulate cognitive processes. It consists of three sub-components: Declarative Knowledge (Knowledge about oneself and one's strategies), procedural Knowledge (Knowledge about how to use strategies), and conditional Knowledge (Knowledge about when and why to use strategies). Metacognitive regulation refers to acti- vities that regulate and control learning (Papaleontiou-Louca, 2003; Schraw, 1998) Planning, information management, comprehension monitoring, debugging, and evaluation are all sub- components of metacognitive regulation, according to (Schraw & Dennison, 1994).
In learning a language, it seems essential for learners to employ metacognition knowledge in mastering language skills, especially writing. In writing, metacognition is concerned with how learners understand their writing processes and adapt it to changing demands (Stewart et al., 2015). Furthermore, Azizi & Estahbanati (2017) stated that metacognition can improve learners' Knowledge of writing compositions in English and assists them in planning their compositions to become more organized. Moreover, it enables learners to adapt their writing strategies in their own way based on what they have learned and helps them know what to write and how to write as well as the purpose of their writing (Negretti, 2012).
Applying metacognition in writing is absolutely necessary since learning writing needs to be supplied by the understanding of content knowledge and linguistic Knowledge such as vocabulary, sentences, paragraphs, grammar, and text structure to achieve writing competence (Oxford, 2011;Buyukyavuz & Cakir, 2014). To produce a good writing, learners need to follow the steps of writing such as pre-writing, organizing topic into an outline, writing a rough draft, revising and editing (Harmer, 2004; Oshima et al., 2007; Langan & Albright, 2019). Due to the importance of writing aspects and knowing the steps of writing, metacognition has an important role in directing learners to reduce the difficulty and anxiety when writing.
In language learning, many students experience anxiety in terms of writing. Besides being caused by low linguistic Knowledge, anxiety in writing is also caused by not having ideas on the given topic and not being able to develop these ideas, traumatic experiences such as getting negative feedback, time constraints, fear of being evaluated, and low motivation (Al Seyabi & Tuzlukova, 2014; Masriani et al., 2018; Yayli & Genç, 2019; Blasco, 2016;
Prasetyaningrum et al., 2021; Balta, 2018). Those reasons make the learners performed poorly in writing and give up writing which leads to writing anxiety. Writing anxiety affects students' attitudes when faced with writing assignments, such as the results of studies obtained by Cheng (2022) and Daly (1978) which indicates that students in high writing anxiety tend to avoid classes involving writing tasks.
Cheng (2004) divided anxiety into three components: Somatic anxiety that refers to some- one's viewpoint of the physiological effects of anxiety, as manifested by an increase in unpleas- ant feelings such as nervousness and tension. Cognitive anxiety, refers to the cognitive factor
of anxiety experience, which includes negative expectations, performance preoccupation, and concern about how others perceive you. Avoidance Behaviour, refers to the behavioural aspect of the anxiety experience, such as avoidance of writing.
Several studies have been conducted in the aspect of metacognition in which writing performance and writing anxiety are interplayed (Negretti, 2012; Azizi & Estahbanati, 2017;
Balta, 2018; Fitri Aglina & Syamsiah, 2020; Jalok & Idris, 2020; Sumarno, 2020). It is indicated that when students apply andhave a high awareness of metacognition in the writing process, they have less writing anxiety, and their writing performance becomes better or improved. In addition, this study investigates the impact of metacognition awareness on writing anxiety.
Therefore, the research problem for this study would be: (1) What are the levels of students’
metacognitive awareness and their writing anxiety? (2) What metacognitive awareness strate- gies are used by students in the learning process? (3) What factors influence students’ writing anxiety? (4) How does students' metacognitive awareness impact their writing anxiety?
METHODS
The descriptive quantitative research design was used in this study to determine the impact of metacognitive awareness on students' writing anxiety. The study was completed in three steps: the preliminary step, the data collection step, and the data analysis step. In the prelimi- nary step, two questionnaires that have been adapted were determined. The questionnaires were distributed online to the participants in the data collection step. In the last step, the data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis.
Research Participants
The participants in this study were students of the English Education Department at Muhammadiyah University Prof. Dr. Hamka, who is taking Essay Writing 1 in East Jakarta, Indonesia. Thirty-four participants were selected from 170 students using non-probability sampling, meeting the standard requirements of a minimal sample which is (n) = min. 30 (Sugiyono, 2019). They were chosen because the Essay Writing course is the first course on writing that the students learned, and previously, most of them were not familiar with writing in English. In this course, students learn about essay structure, outlining, drafting, and revising an essay.
Instruments
This study applied two questionnaires that have been adapted; The Metacognitive Aware- ness Inventory (MAI) designed by Schraw & Dennison (1994) is used to collect data on students' levels of metacognitive awareness; the Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI) designed by Cheng (2004) is used to assess students' levels of anxiety when writing in English.
These questionnaires employed a 5-point Likert scale. The MAI questionnaire consists of twenty-four items and has two aspects; Knowledge about cognition and Regulation of cogni- tion. Moreover, Knowledge about cognition has three sub-aspects; Declarative Knowledge, Conditional Knowledge, and Procedural Knowledge. Furthermore, Regulation of cognition has five sub-aspects; Planning, Information Management Strategies, Monitoring, Debugging strategies, and Evaluation. The SLWAI questionnaire consists of seventeen items and has three aspects; Cognitive anxiety, Somatic anxiety, and Avoidance anxiety.
The Pearson moment correlation was used to calculate the validity and reliability of the two questionnaires. The results of the validity of the MAI questionnaire show the lowest coefficient value is 0.413, while the highest coefficient value is 0.814. Moreover, the results of the validity
of the SLWAI questionnaire show the lowest coefficient value is 0.380 and the highest coeffi- cient value is 0.732. These results indicate that both questionnaires are valid. Furthermore, the reliability value using Cronbach alpha for the MAI questionnaire was 0.923 and the Cronbach alpha value for the SLWAI questionnaire was 0.823. This showed acceptable results since it exceeds the Cronbach alpha coefficient, which is 0.7.
Data Collection Procedures
The distribution of the questionnaire was carried out online using the Google Form. Before the questionnaire was distributed, the researcher contacted the Essay Writing I lecturer to ask permission to distribute the questionnaire in their class. Lecturers distributed questionnaires via the WhatsApp group and asked students to fill out the Google Forms. After the question- naires were distributed, 34 students completed them all.
Data Analysis Techniques
After the data from 34 respondents were collected, all items were calculated using the classi- fied Likert scale. For the 24 items of the MAI questionnaire, the total score range is 24-120.
Each item is worth a minimum of one point, which means the minimum total score is 24 points, while the maximum value for each item is five points equal to a maximum total score of 120 points. The total score of 24-56 is categorized as low level, the total score of 57-88 is catego- rized as intermediate level, and the total score of 89-120 is categorized as high level. Further- more, for the 17 items of the SLWAI questionnaires, the total score range is 17-85. The mini- mum total score is 17 and the maximum total score is 85. The total score of 17-40 is categorized as low level, the total score of 41-63 is categorized as intermediate level, and the total score of 64-85 is categorized as high level. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the mean score and determine the strategies students used in the learning process and the factors that influenced their writing anxiety. These results are used to answer the second and third research questions. The mean score is sorted from the highest to the lowest. Then, regression analysis was used to find the impact of students' metacognitive awareness on their writing anxiety and answer the research questions.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Results
The results are formulated in four main sections. The first section presents data on students’
metacognitive awareness and writing anxiety levels. The second section discusses the strategies that contributed to students' metacognitive awareness. The third section discusses the factors that influence students' writing anxiety. The fourth section demonstrates the regression analy- sis used to determine the effect of students' metacognitive awareness on writing anxiety and answer research questions.
Students’ Metacognitive Awareness and Writing Anxiety Levels
This section discusses the level of students' metacognitive awareness and their writing anxiety. Table 1 presents that the students have a high metacognitive awareness. While Table 2 shows that students experience intermediate levels of writing anxiety.
More than half of the students, or approximately 79%, have a score above 89, implying a high metacognitive awareness level. Furthermore, approximately 21% of the students have an intermediate level of metacognitive awareness. Meanwhile, none of the students had a low
level of metacognitive awareness. This implied that the majority of students have a high level of metacognitive awareness.
Table 1. The overall levels of students’ metacognitive awareness Levels of metacognitive awareness Frequencies Percentages
High level 27 79%
Intermediate level 7 21%
Low level 0 0%
Total 34 100%
Table 2. The overall levels of students’ writing anxiety
Levels of writing anxiety Frequencies Percentages
High level 9 26%
Intermediate level 24 71%
Low level 1 3%
Total 34 100%
Strategies Contributing to Students’ Metacognitive Awareness
This section determined the strategies contributing to students' metacognitive awareness.
The mean score is arranged from highest to lowest. Overall, debugging strategies have the highest mean score, while procedural is in last place. Debugging strategies, planning, and evaluation are the three strategies with the highest mean scores. Debugging strategies have a higher mean score than planning. While the mean score of planning is higher than that of evaluation.
Table 3. The analysis of strategies contributing to metacognitive awareness
Components Descriptions Mean
(M)
Standard Deviation
(SD) Debugging
Strategies Stop and reread when getting confused. 4.41 0.701 Ask others for help when you don’t understand
something.
4.35 0.691 Changing strategies when failing to understand. 4.24 0.699
Total 4.33 0.697
Planning Read the instruction carefully before beginning a task. 4.47 0.563 Thinking of several ways to solve the problem and
choose the best one.
4.06 0.694 Thinking about what needs to be learned before
beginning a task.
3.91 0.830
Total 4.15 0.696
Evaluation Ask themselves if there was an easier way to do things after finishing a task.
4.26 0.710 Summarizing what has been learned after finishing. 3.91 0.965
Total 4.09 0.837
Declarative Learn more when interested in the topic. 4.47 0.615 Knowing the kind of information that is most important
to learn. 4.12 0.769
Understanding intellectual strengths and weaknesses. 4.09 0.712
Good at remembering information. 3.59 0.557
Total 4.07 0.663
Components Descriptions Mean (M)
Standard Deviation
(SD) Information
Management Strategies
Consciously focusing attention on important
information. 4.26 0.710
Creating examples to make information more
meaningful. 4.00 0.739
Trying to break studying down into smaller steps. 4.00 0.696 Trying to translate new information into their own
words.
3.94 0.736
Total 4.05 0.720
Conditional Use different learning strategies depending on the situation.
4.09 1.085 Knowing when each strategy will be most effective. 3.97 1.127
Total 4.03 1.106
Monitoring Periodically reviewing to help understand important relationships.
4.18 0.673 Considering several alternatives to a problem before
answering.
4.09 0.570 Pause regularly to check comprehension. 3.94 0.851 Analyzing the usefulness of strategies while studying. 3.85 0.892
Total 4.01 0.747
Table 3 illustrates that when learning, students in this study used "Stop and reread when confused" (M=4.41; SD0.701) as the most common strategy in the debugging strategies component. Followed by "Read instructions carefully before beginning a task" (M=4.47; SD=
0.563) in the planning component. After that "Ask themselves if there was an easier way to do things after finishing a task" (M=4.26; SD=0,710) in the evaluation component. These three strategies are the most frequently used by students when learning. In fourth place, students' learning strategy is "Learn more when interested in the topic" (M=4.47; SD=0.615) in the declarative component. In the information management strategies component, "Consciously focusing attention on important information" (M=4.16; SD=0.710) ranks fifth. "Use different learning strategies depending on the situation" (M=4.09; SD= 1.085) is the sixth sequence in the conditional component. "Periodically reviewing to help understand important relation- ships" (M=4.18; SD= 0.673) is the seventh order in the monitoring component. And the last sequence is "Aware of the strategies to use when studying" (M=3.85; SD=0.610) in the procedural component.
Factors Influencing Students’ Writing Anxiety
This section presented the factors that influence students’ writing anxiety. The mean score of somatic anxiety is higher than that of cognitive anxiety. Furthermore, the mean score of cognitive anxiety is higher than that of avoidance anxiety. The mean score is arranged from the highest to the lowest.
Table 4 indicates that students in this study perceived "Heart pounding when writing English compositions under time constraint" (M=3.85; SD=1.077) as the factor that most influenced writing anxiety in the somatic anxiety component. Followed by "Feeling worried if the English composition is to be evaluated and getting a very poor grade" (M=4.18; SD= 0.936) in the cog- nitive anxiety component. Subsequently, “Would use English to write compositions whenever possible" (M=3.97; SD=0.834) in the avoidance anxiety component.
Table 4. An analysis of factors contributing to writing anxiety
Components Descriptions Mean
(M) Standard Deviation (SD) Somatic
anxiety
Heart pounding when writing English compositions under time constraints.
3.85 1.077
My mind often goes blank when starting to work on English compositions.
3.65 1.252
Tremble or perspire when writing English compositions under time pressure.
3.62 1.231
Freezing up when unexpectedly asked to write English compositions.
3.50 1.052
Total 3.65 1.153
Cognitive anxiety
Feeling worried if the English composition is to be evaluated and get a very poor grade.
4.18 0.936
Feeling worried and uneasy if the English composition will be evaluated.
4.09 0.900
Afraid that the other students would laugh at the English compositions if they read it.
3.65 1.252
Not nervous at all while writing in English. 3.56 1.050 Do not worry at all about what other people think of
the English compositions.
3.24 1.257
Do not worry if the English compositions are a lot worse than others.
3.06 1.205
Not afraid at all if the English compositions would be rated as very poor.
2.82 1.359
Total 3.51 1.137
Avoidance anxiety
Would use English to write compositions whenever possible.
3.97 0.834
Seek every possible chance to write English compositions outside of class.
3.56 1.133
Would not use English to write compositions unless I had choice.
3.53 0.896
Often choose to write down thoughts in English. 3.38 1.015 Would do my best to excuse myself if asked to write
English compositions.
2.59 1.258
Do your best to avoid writing English compositions. 2.56 1.284
Total 3.26 1.070
Regression Analysis of Students’ Metacognitive Awareness and their Writing Anxiety
To answer the research question, regression analysis was used to determine the impact of metacognitive awareness on students’ writing anxiety (Table 5).
Table 5. Regression Coefficients between Metacognitive Awareness and Second Language Writing Anxiety
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) 37.020 15.505 2.388 0.233
MAI 0.223 0.158 0.242 1.412 0.167
Table 5 presents that the significance value obtained from the coefficient table is p=0.167>0.05. This means that it cannot predict metacognitive awareness of writing anxiety because it contributes insignificantly. The constant B value is 37,020, indicating that it positively influences on metacognitive awareness. This means that if metacognitive awareness increases,
writing anxiety will increase or be fulfilled. According to the metacognitive awareness regression coefficient of 0.233, as metacognitive awareness increases, writing anxiety increases by 0.233, or 23.3%.
Discussion
According to the descriptive statistics, in general, the level of students' metacognitive awareness is at a high level. This finding was in line with a study conducted by Feiz (2016), Balta (2018), and Fitri Aglina & Syamsiah (2020). This high level of metacognitive awareness proves that in the learning process students can plan, organize, monitor, evaluate, and have control over their learning process. High metacognitive awareness also positively affects students' attitudes toward language learning (Feiz, 2016). Fitri Aglina & Syamsiah (2020) stated in their study that students who are aware of their metacognitive awareness experience less anxiety when writing. In addition, the level of students' writing anxiety is at an intermediate level. This finding was consistent with the findings of a study conducted by Masriani et al. (2018), Delvi Wahyuni et al. (2019), and Yelgeç & Dağyar (2020). Fear of failure and concern that their writing will be graded and receive a low grade are the factors that most influence students' anxiety in writing. In addition, another factor that makes students anxious when writing is the lack of Knowledge of writing composition and the inability to generate ideas as found in the research conducted by Yayli & Genç (2019). This is due to time constraints and stress.
Furthermore, in general, students use three metacognitive awareness strategies when learning: Debugging strategies, planning, and evaluation. Debugging Strategies are methods for correcting comprehension and performance errors (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). This finding was in line with a study conducted by Teng et al. (2022) and Yasir et al. (2020). In their findings the use of debugging strategies in learning allows students to revise their understanding, increase their ability to reflect, and improve their academics. Moreover, planning means being able to select the right strategy and allocate resources for learning. Students who plan well understand the essence and objectives of learning, the strategies and information required for learning, and how much time and resources are required (Ramadhanti et al., 2019). Subse- quently, evaluation means analyze the effectiveness of the strategies used after learning.
During evaluation, students can review the strategies they use during the learning process. This finding was in line with a study conducted by (Maftoon & Fakhri Alamdari, 2020). According to their findings, evaluation strategies help students to increase their awareness by receiving metacognitive strategy instructions.
Based on the factors that influence students' writing anxiety, somatic anxiety is generally the most influential factor. This result is in contrast from the research conducted by Min, L.S.,
& Rahmat (2014) and Kumuthini Jagabalan et al. (2016). Students in their study experienced physiological symptoms such as nervousness, perspiring, and trembling. Furthermore, cogni- tive anxiety is the second factor that influences students' writing anxiety. Students are afraid that the writing is not understood or monotonous when read by others and will be laughed at, feels that their abilities are still lacking, and are afraid of getting poor grades. This finding was in line with a study conducted by Rahim et al. (2016), Wahyuni (2017), and Masriani et al. (2018), which found that students are afraid of their writing because quality of their writing determines the grade. Peer perception is one of the factors that contribute to students' low self-esteem.
Students believe that their peers' verbal and nonverbal reactions humiliate and lower their self- esteem (Aragão, 2011). The factors mentioned in cognitive anxiety make students avoid writing.
This is in contrast to research from Aloairdhi (2019) and Quvanch & Kew (2022) where avoidance anxiety is the last factor that influences students' writing anxiety.
Using regression analysis to answer research questions proves that there is no effect between metacognitive awareness and writing anxiety. This finding was in contrast with a study by Fitri Aglina & Syamsiah (2020), which found a significant correlation between metacognitive awareness and writing anxiety (p<0.05). The findings that are not statistically significant from this study can be related to several factors, such as the condition of the participants when filling out the questionnaire and the Covid-19 pandemic which forced all learning processes to be carried out online, making students less understanding of Knowledge in writing English compositions.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, students in this study had high metacognitive awareness and moderate levels of writing anxiety. Clarifying earlier studies, students can apply metacognitive awareness strate- gies to their learning. Students use three strategies during the learning process: Debugging strategies, planning, and evaluation. They can effectively plan and asses the strategies they use and revise their understanding. In addition, students experience somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and avoidance anxiety. The highest factor of anxiety was somatic anxiety in which students felt tremble when writing English compositions. This is followed by cognitive anxiety, in which students fear if their writing is considered not good and receive poor grades, and avoidance anxiety, in which avoidance behaviour is displayed by students when asked to write an English composition. Moreover, metacognitive awareness has no significant impact on students’ second language writing anxiety. It indicates that even though students can plan, be aware of their learning strategies, and revise the strategies used, they still feel anxious, especially if under certain circumstances such as time constraints and lack of knowledge of writing English compositions.
REFERENCES
al Seyabi, F., & Tuzlukova, V. (2014). Writing problems and strategies: an investigative study in the Omani School and University Context. Asian Journal of Social Sciences &
Humanities, 3(4).
Aloairdhi, N. M. (2019). Writing anxiety among saudi female learners at some Saudi
Universities. English Language Teaching, 12(9), 55. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n9p55 Aragão, R. (2011). Beliefs and emotions in foreign language learning. System, 39(3), 302–313.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.003
Aula Blasco, J. (2016). The relationship between writing anxiety, writing selfefficacy, and Spanish EFL students’ use of metacognitive writing strategies: a case study. Journal of English Studies, 14, 7. https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.3069
Azizi, M., & Estahbanati, N. T. (2017). Meta-cognitive awareness of writing strategy use among Iranian EFL learners and its impact on their writing perf.... www.eltsjournal.org
Balta, E. (2018). The relationships among writing skills, writing anxiety and metacognitive awareness. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(3), 233.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n3p233
Buyukyavuz, O., & Cakir, I. (2014). Uncovering the motivating factors behind writing in English in an EFL context. Anthropologist, 18(1), 153–163.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2014.11891531
Chari, M., Samavi, A., & Kordestani, D. (2010). Investigating psychometric characteristics of metacognitive reading strategies scale among Iranian high-school students. Psychiatry Studies, 1–22.
Cheng, Y.-S. (2022). Factors associated with foreign language writing anxiety. In Foreign Language Annals * (Vol. 35, Issue 5).
Daly, J. A. (1978). Writing apprehension and writing competency. Journal of Educational Research, 72(1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1978.10885110
Delvi Wahyuni, D. W., Witri Oktavia, W. O., & Leni Marlina, L. M. (2019). Writing anxiety among Indonesian EFL college students: levels, causes, and coping strategies. Lingua Cultura, 13(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v13i1.5239
Farahian, M. (2015). Assessing EFL learners’ writing metacognitive awareness. 11(2), 39–51.
Feiz, J. P. (2016). Metacognitive awareness and attitudes toward foreign language learning in the EFL context of Turkey. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 459–470.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.063
Fitri Aglina, E., & Syamsiah, N. (n.d.). The correlation between students’ metacognitive awareness and their anxiety in writing performance (Vol. 13, Issue 1).
https://ejournal.radenintan.ac.id/index.php/ENGEDU
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 906–911.
Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Pearson Longman.
Jalok, Q., & Idris, F. (2020). Using metacognition in lowering writing anxiety and improving writing performance among low-intermediate ESL students. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(3).
https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v10-i3/7088
Langan, J., & Albright, Z. L. (2019). Exploring writing : paragraphs and essays (Fourth Edition).
McGraw-Hill Education.
Maftoon, P., & Fakhri Alamdari, E. (2020). Exploring the effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on metacognitive awareness and listening performance through a process- based approach. International Journal of Listening, 34(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2016.1250632
Mahmoudi, E. , K. F. , R. M. (2010). The relationship between metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and comprehension monitoring in reading ability of EFL learners.
Masriani, E., Wahyuni, D., & Hamka Air Tawar Padang, J. (2018). Writing anxiety and writing strategies used by english department students of Universitas Negeri Padang. 12(1), 76–
85. https://doi.org/10.24036/ld.v12i1.8766
Min, L. , R. N. (2014). English language writing anxiety among final year engineering
undergraduates in University Putra Malaysia. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.4p.102
Mufty, M. A., & Cheng, Y.-S. (2004). EFL students’ writing anxiety: sources and implications 1.
In 英語教學 English Teaching & Learning (Vol. 29, Issue 2).
Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: A longitudinal study of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation, and evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29(2), 142–179.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312438529
Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102–116.
Oshima, A., Hogue, A., & Oshima, A. (2007). Introduction to academic English.
Pearson/Longman.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Strategies for learning a second or foreign language. In Language Teaching (Vol. 44, Issue 2, pp. 167–180). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000492 Papaleontiou-Louca, E. (2003). The concept and instruction of metacognition. In Teacher
Development (Vol. 7, Issue 1).
Prasetyaningrum, A., Nazri, A., & Asrobi, M. (2021). A study of learners’ writing anxiety in EFL context. Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa &
Seni Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP, 8(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.33394/jo- elt.v8i1.3707
Quvanch, Z., & Kew, S. N. (2022). Evaluating Afghanistan University students’ writing anxiety in English class: An empirical research. Cogent Education, 9(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2040697
Rahim, S. A., Jaganathan, P., Sepora, T., & Mahadi, T. (2016). An investigation on the effects of writing anxiety on readiness of writing among low proficiency undergraduates.
International Journal of Language Education and Applied Linguistics.
http://ijleal.ump.edu.my/
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 1.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.
Stephanou, G., & Mpiontini, M.-H. (2017). Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation in self-regulatory learning style, and in its effects on performance
expectation and subsequent performance across diverse school subjects. Psychology, 08(12), 1941–1975. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2017.812125
Stewart, G., Seifert, T. A., & Rolheiser, C. (2015). Anxiety and self-efficacy’s relationship with undergraduate students’ perceptions of the use of metacognitive writing strategies. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2015.1.4
Sugiyono. (2019). Metode penelitian pendidikan pendekatan kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R & D.
Alfabeta.
Sumarno, W. K. (2020). The role of metacognitive strategies and awareness in writing task performance. INELTAL Conference Proceedings.
Tuncer, M., & Dogan, Y. (2016). Relationships among foreign language anxiety, academic self- efficacy beliefs and metacognitive awareness: A structural equation modelling.
International Journal of Learning and Development, 6(2), 31.
https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v6i2.9519
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: development and validation. In Language Learning Research Club (Vol. 56, Issue 3).
Wahyuni, S. , K. U. M. (2017). An analysis of writing anxiety of Indonesian efl college learners.
Yayli, D., & Genç, E. (2019). The second language writing anxiety: the perceived sources and consequences. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 45(45), 235–251.
https://doi.org/10.9779/puje.2018.231
Yelgeç, N., & Dağyar, M. (2020). A structural equation modelling of middle school students’
metacognitive awareness, self-efficacy beliefs and foreign language learning anxiety.
International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research.
https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.657172
York. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning 1 ANITA L WENDEN.
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/
