Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning

(SRL) in Second/Foreign Language

Teaching

Donglan Zhang and Lawrence Jun Zhang

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Key Concepts: Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Metacognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Metacognition in Second/Foreign Language Learning and Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Self-Regulated Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Taking Stock of Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Pedagogical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Focus on Students/Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Focus on Teaching Metacognitive Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Students and Teachers Working Together Toward Learner Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Abstract
Metacognition has been defined as learners’ “cognition about cognition” (Flavell
(1979) Am Psychol 34(10):906–911), which has also been widely accepted as a
theoretical framework for researching language learning and teaching, especially
in examining language learner strategies in the field of second/foreign language
education. Pedagogical practices in light of such a framework have also been
promoted accordingly. Nonetheless, the research literature is short of delineation
on the relationship between metacognition and self-regulation. It is especially
scant with regard to how self-regulated learning (SRL) is related to second
language learning and teaching. This chapter intends to clarify the relationship
between the seemingly different constructs, metacognition and self-regulated
learning, in relation to the learning and teaching of second or foreign languages.

D. Zhang (*) · L. J. Zhang

Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
e-mail: donglan.zhang@auckland.ac.nz; lj.zhang@auckland.ac.nz; larry.jzhang@gmail.com

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

X. Gao (ed.), Second Handbook of English Language Teaching, Springer International
Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_47-1
2 D. Zhang and L. J. Zhang

It is also aimed at strengthening the research-practice nexus, with a view of

helping classroom researchers to be well-informed of the theoretical connections
between the two constructs for more stringent research to be carried out for
benefiting frontline teachers, whose responsibilities are delivering effective
instruction for enhancing learners’ language proficiency.

Keywords
Metacognition · Self-regulated learning (SRL) · Second/foreign languages ·
Language learning strategies · Learner autonomy

Introduction

Research has been consistent in showing that successful language learners have a
very sophisticated understanding of how language works as well as how their
language learning endeavor can be expedited through relevant strategic maneuvers
that are guided by their well-developed understanding of what they should do;
where, when, and how to do it; and why they do it the way they do things for
effective learning (Hacker 1998; Haukas 2018; Zhang and Goh 2006). Such sys-
tematic thinking of second/foreign language learners is commonly known as
learners’ metacognition (Goh 1998, 2008; Wenden 1987b; Zhang 2001, 2016).
Developing students of foreign/second languages into “metacognitively strong”
learners is, therefore, a necessary goal in language learning in various contexts
(Zhang 2007, 2011; Zhang et al. 2016). This is the reason why metacognition is
crucial to our understanding of learners in the classroom and beyond. Related to this
notion is self-regulated learning. Like metacognition, self-regulated learning is a key
trait of successful learners, too.
Despite a plethora of the literature addressing the importance of metacognition in
the field of second/foreign language teaching and learning (see, e.g., Vandergrift and
Goh 2012; Wenden 1987a, 1998; Zhang and Qin 2018), discussions on the role of
self-regulated learning are rather limited in the field of second/foreign language
education (cf. Hu and Gao 2018; Teng and Zhang 2016, 2018). Even scarcer is
discussion on their interrelationships and how they can be both tapped into for
benefiting language teaching and learning, with the ultimate aim of developing
students into autonomous learners. This chapter intends to clarify the relationship
between the seemingly different constructs, metacognition and self-regulated learn-
ing, in relation to the learning and teaching of second or foreign languages. The aim
of doing so is to strengthen the research-practice nexus, with a view to helping
classroom researchers to be well-informed of the theoretical connections between the
two concepts for more stringent research to be carried out to benefit frontline
teachers, whose responsibilities are delivering effective instruction for enhancing
learners’ language proficiency and learning capacity (De Silva and Graham 2015).
Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) in Second/Foreign Language. . . 3

Key Concepts: Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning

The two key concepts discussed in this chapter are metacognition and self-regulated
learning. Due to their long histories as well as complexities surrounding their
definitions, we present them in the following sections under different headings.

Metacognition

In the inaugural issue of the international journal, Metacognition and Learning,

Veenman et al. (2006) point out that “while there is consistent acknowledgement of
the importance of metacognition, inconsistency marks the conceptualization of the
construct” (p. 4). Given that the focus of this chapter is on how to relate the
significant role of metacognition to second/foreign language teaching, it is not our
intention in joining the debate on the conceptualization of metacognition. This has to
be made explicit at the beginning so that readers will be getting the right information
about what will ensue in this chapter.
In the education psychology literature, metacognition has been typically defined
as learners’ “cognition about cognition” (Flavell 1979, 1981), referring to learners’
knowledge about the cognitive processes that involve them in decision-making
before, during, or after performing a learning task. In general, Flavell’s conceptual-
ization of metacognition has been widely adopted in the second/foreign language
education literature as a theoretical framework in examining the learning and
teaching process. Flavell (1981) differentiated metacognition into metacognitive
knowledge and metacognitive experience, with metacognitive knowledge primarily
being “learners’ knowledge or beliefs about what factors or variables act and interact
in what ways to affect the course and outcome of cognitive enterprise” (p. 5).
Metacognitive experience is what learners go through, especially their affective
experience, in the learning process and their thoughts about the way they do things.
Most often, metacognition is a higher-level cognitive endeavor in which learners
actively monitor their cognitive activities and constantly regulate them for better
learning outcomes. Learners’ monitoring and regulation processes are often orches-
trated in their effort to achieve concrete learning goals or objectives.
Metacognition in real situations takes different specific forms. In his earlier work,
Flavell (1976) posited that children undergo cognitive monitoring processes that are
essentially a phenomenon of “meta-memory.” In the contemporary psychology
literature, commonly used terms relating to the notion of metacognition include,
e.g., meta-learning (learning about learning), meta-attention (attention about atten-
tion), and metalanguage (knowledge about language), among others. These notions
are particularly useful when we as teachers notice students who have difficulty in the
learning process and we need to ask them to talk about why. Flavell (1979) thinks
that metacognition includes broadly three aspects, metacognitive knowledge, meta-
cognitive regulation, and metacognitive experiences, which are further explained
below.
4 D. Zhang and L. J. Zhang

Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge comprises learners’ understanding of their own cognitive
processing that can affect their cognitive outcomes. This is an area where research
activities are rather productive, not only in the field of educational psychology but
also in second/foreign language education (see Zhang 2010; Zhang and Zhang
2013). Flavell’s (1979) three subcategories of metacognitive knowledge systemati-
cally refer to person knowledge, task knowledge, and strategy knowledge. Person
knowledge is learners’ knowledge of variables relating to their’ general knowledge
about anything concerning them as learners (e.g., personality, ability, capacity,
motivation, aptitude, working memory). Task knowledge is their understanding of
the nature, type, and difficulty of a task and the processing demands placed on them
for completing it. In Flavell’s words, task knowledge is basically about “how
successful you are likely to be in achieving its goal” (1979, p. 907). Knowledge
about various types of strategies for solving the problems in learning, both cognitive
and metacognitive, is called strategy knowledge. Later, scholars added dimensions to
this tripartite theoretical framework by including learners’ knowledge about when,
where, how, and why to use such strategies (see, e.g., Anderson 1981; Schraw 1998).
Following Anderson’s (1981) framework, Schraw (1998) further fine-tuned
metacognitive knowledge by including three kinds: (1) declarative knowledge, or
awareness of what strategies and concepts are important in relation to a specific task;
(2) procedural knowledge, or awareness of how concepts and strategies can be
applied for solving problems; and (3) conditional knowledge, or awareness of
when and why to apply certain knowledge and strategies (see also earlier work by
McCormick 2003; Paris and Winograd 1990). In this process, the centrality of
learners’ executive control of cognition, including planning, monitoring, and eval-
uating, is acknowledged. Evidently, this is a positive advancement of the tripartite
Flavallian model of metacognition. Such theoretical understandings of metacogni-
tion have been embraced by scholars incorporated into their own research and
practice in the field of second/foreign language education (see Goh 1998; Hu and
Gao 2018; Victori 1999; Wenden 1987a, 1998; Ruan 2014; Zhang and Zhang 2018),
which will be discussed later in this chapter (see section “Metacognition in Second/
Foreign Language Learning and Teaching”).

Metacognitive Regulation
Related to, but different from, metacognitive knowledge is the notion of meta-
cognitive regulation, which, in fact, includes anything that is related to the specific
embodiment of learners’ metacognitive knowledge in practice or any action to take
control of their own learning. In this process, learners will inevitably resort to the
strategies that they know for achieving their goal. These strategies typically include
planning, monitoring, and evaluating. Processes such as planning one’s own learning
before putting into action to solve a problem, monitoring the learning process and
product during learning, and assessing the degree of success of the learning outcome
are significant to learners’ appropriate adjustment of the learning process for best
learning outcomes (Schraw 1998). Second/foreign language scholars have also done
Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) in Second/Foreign Language. . . 5

sufficient work in order to find out how successful and less successful learners
manage their learning guided by their metacognitive knowledge and how teachers’
metacognitive knowledge systems or beliefs would guide them in their decision-
making in language teaching (e.g., Haukas 2018; Wenden 1999; Zhang 2016).

Metacognitive Experiences
It has to be emphasized that metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experi-
ences are not the same in Flavell’s (1981) classification. Metacognitive knowledge is
a constellation of beliefs and knowledge about learning or how things are or should
be learned. Some of these knowledge bases can be faulty and need correction or
modification. Metacognitive experiences, however, are “any conscious cognitive or
affective experiences that accompany and pertain to any intellectual enterprise”
(Flavell 1979, p. 908). They are “conscious cognitive and affective states which
involve awareness, unexpected awareness, thoughts, intuitions, perceptions, feel-
ings, and self-judgements of oneself as a cognisor during problem solving and task
completion” (Tarricone 2011, p. 130). Metacognitive experiences are likely to occur
in situations that stimulate a range of careful, highly conscious thinking that “can be
brief or lengthy in duration, simple or complex in content” (Flavell 1979, p. 908). By
inference, these experiences occur when students are sensitive to external or internal
feedback on their functioning and strategy use during the execution of the learning
task (Hattie and Timperley 2007).
Papaleontiou-Louca (2008) identified several attributes that are closely related to
metacognitive experiences. She argues that “metacognitive experiences can have
very important effects on cognitive goals or tasks, metacognitive knowledge and
cognitive actions or strategies” (p. 14). In other words, metacognitive experiences
can induce goal orientation and help learners to revise the existing knowledge
system. It can be surmised that proper metacognitive experiences help learners to
retrieve some of the relevant strategies that can be utilized for achieving their
cognitive or metacognitive goals in the learning enterprise. Understandably, the
relationships among the three are interactive and iterative. Metacognitive knowledge
is informed by metacognitive experiences and also guides metacognitive experi-
ences. Metacognitive regulation is based on metacognitive knowledge and experi-
ences. Metacognitive knowledge is revised because of the feedback loop effects of
metacognitive regulation and metacognitive experiences.

Metacognition in Second/Foreign Language Learning and Teaching

Flavell’s (1976, 1979, 1981) conceptualization of metacognition does not specifi-

cally relate to second/foreign language learning. Nonetheless, he points out the
importance of applying metacognition to understanding how various aspects of
language development can be deepened, especially with regard to children. He
argues that metacognition “plays an important role in oral communication of infor-
mation, oral persuasion, oral comprehension, reading comprehension, writing, lan-
guage acquisition, attention, memory, problem solving, social cognition, and various
6 D. Zhang and L. J. Zhang

types of self-control and self-instruction” (Flavell 1979, p. 906). Tarricone (2011)

concurs that person, task, and strategy knowledge variables are expected to interact
and that such interactions tend to have important effects on “the selection, evalua-
tion, and termination of cognitive actions or strategies and cognitive goals” (p. 129).
It is exactly because of such relevance that scholars have discussed the implications
of metacognition for, and application to, second/foreign language teaching and
learning (see, e.g., Goh 1998, 2008; Vandegrift and Goh 2012; Wenden 1987a,
1998; Zhang 2010, 2016; Zhang and Zhang 2018).
Anita Wenden is best known as the first scholar in the field of second/foreign
language learning and teaching to have applied Flavell’s (1976, 1979, 1981) model
of metacognition to understanding second/foreign language teaching and learning
through her research publications (e.g., Wenden 1987a, 1998) and practical manuals
(Wenden 1987b, 1991). In relation to second/foreign language education, Wenden
(1998) thinks that metacognitive knowledge is “relatively stable information human
thinkers have about their own cognitive processes and those of others” (p. 516). Such
knowledge includes “beliefs, insights, and concepts that they have acquired about
language and the language learning process” (Wenden 1999, p. 34). Wenden has
adopted a simplified model of language learners’ metacognitive knowledge, where
three variables, person, task, and strategy knowledge, are highlighted. Her success-
ful attempts to illustrate how such a tripartite knowledge system can be used for
researching language learning and teaching are tremendously influential. A large
number of scholars have since continued this line of research and investigated
various language skill areas until the present day. These include listening (Goh
1998; Goh and Hu 2014; Zhang and Goh 2006), reading (Zhang 2001, 2010),
speaking (Lam 2010), listening (Zhang 2004), writing (Hu and Gao 2018; Ong
2014; Ruan 2014; Teng and Zhang 2016; Victori 1999), language learning in
multimedia environments (Qin 2018; Wei et al. 2014; Zhang and Qin 2018), distance
education in language learning (White 1995), and language teacher education
(Hauka 2018). The findings all consistently point to a very strong relation between
learners’ metacognition and second/foreign language learning and teachers’ meta-
cognition about teaching and their pedagogical practice.
Metacognitive instruction intervention studies have also produced positive results
indicating the benefit of raising students’ awareness of person, task, and strategy
factors at the metacognitive level for effective language learning (Plonsky 2011;
Teng and Zhang 2016; Zhang 2008). It has to be pointed out that research into
language learning strategies gradually became somewhat dormant after its prime
time in the 1990s (e.g., Cohen 1998; Oxford 1990; O’Malley and Chamot 1990).
Discussions on the revival of language learner strategy research have been active in
recent years (Cohen and Griffiths 2015; Oxford 2016; Rose 2011). A key component
of such discussions is metacognition (see Gao 2006; Gao and Zhang 2011; Rose
et al. 2018; Zhang 2010, 2016). Research along this line also has significant
implications for second/foreign language education and the related enterprise of
language teacher education.
Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) in Second/Foreign Language. . . 7

Self-Regulated Learning

Self-regulated learning (SRL) is a term that is most often used to describe people’s
ability to develop a set of skills that enable them to expand their learning capacity.
For effective learning to happen, self-regulated learning (SRL) theory posits that
personal, behavioral, and environmental factors interact, in which process students
intentionally activate, sustain, and adjust their cognition, affect, and behavior to
achieve learning goals (Zimmerman and Schunk 2011). The literature in this field is
extensively rich, but SRL is usually regarded as an active and constructive process,
which involves learners setting goals themselves so that they can monitor, regulate,
and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior in the learning environment of
which they are members of the learning community. In this way, it can be said that
self-regulated learning is, simply put, learning how to learn. Since the 1980s, a
number of researchers have proposed a variety of theoretical frameworks and models
that outline self-regulated learning in terms of learning targets, guidance, and
potential planning mechanisms. However, each model seems to have its own specific
definitions; there is a lack of consensus on a uniform definition. These models share
much commonality with models of metacognition, especially that of Flavell, which
will be discussed in the next section.

Taking Stock of Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning

In critiquing language learning strategy research, Dörnyei (2005) recommends a

number of typical self-regulated learning strategies as a replacement, which are in
fact well represented in the metacognition literature. At least five strategies are
explained, and they are (1) commitment control strategies for helping preserve or
increase one’s goal commitment; (2) metacognitive control strategies for monitoring
and controlling concentration and for curtailing unnecessary procrastination; (3) sati-
ation control strategies for eliminating boredom and adding extra attraction or
interest to the task; (4) emotion control strategies for managing disruptive emotional
states or moods and for generating emotions that are conducive to implementing
one’s intentions; and (5) environmental control strategies for the elimination of
negative environmental influences by making an environment an ally in the pursuit
of a difficult goal (Dörnyei 2005, p. 113). In this sense, we can surmise that
metacognition and self-regulated learning are closely interlinked. Discussions on
the interrelationships among metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated
learning are a recent focus in the field of educational psychology (Kaplan 2008),
despite their rarity in the field of second/foreign language education (cf. Zhang and
Zhang 2008).
In one typical series of discussions, we can detect some minute differences among
the various views on the notions of metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated
learning. Nevertheless, as a whole, it is clearly discernible that scholars agree that
they are interconnected. For example, Kaplan (2008) posits that “metacognition,
self-regulation, and self-regulated learning should be considered as subtypes of the
8 D. Zhang and L. J. Zhang

general, abstract phenomenon of self-regulated action . . .” and proposes that

scholars “search for dimensions along which types of self-regulated action vary”
(p. 477). He concludes that “self-regulation itself is not a unitary construct: There is
no one set of cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and behavioural strategies that
constitutes the desirable mode of engagement in every setting and task” (p. 483).
Based on their review of the literature, Dinsmore et al. (2008) similarly conclude that
the three terms (metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning) are
nested within each other and share the underlying notion of “a marriage between
self-awareness and intention to act” (p. 404). In their review of the historical roots of
the concepts in the writings of Piaget and Vygotsky, Fox and Riconscente (2008)
maintain that “metacognition and self-regulation are parallel and intertwining con-
structs that are clearly distinct yet mutually entailed both developmentally and in
their functions in human thought and behaviour. Neither subsumes nor subordinates
the other” (p. 386).
In relation to the field of second/foreign language education, we would like to
note that probably because of the close relationships among the three constructs,
attempts to use self-regulation or self-regulated learning theories in understanding
the learning and teaching of second/foreign languages are relatively infrequently
reported in the literature. Zhang and Zhang (2008) briefly discussed the importance
of metacognition and self-regulated learning in second/foreign language education,
but they did not provide any empirical data. In one of the few empirical studies that
used self-regulated learning theory for examining foreign language learning, Teng
and Zhang (2016) intended to bring self-regulated learning theory into the field by
specifically investigating the characteristics of EFL students’ self-regulated learning
strategies in learning to write through validating a newly developed instrument
called The Writing Strategies for Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) Questionnaire,
with respect to its multifaceted structure of SRL strategies in EFL writing. The
sample was 790 undergraduate students from 6 universities in China. Confirmatory
factor analyses produced a 9-factor correlated model of EFL writing strategies for
SRL. In their further analysis, they confirmed a hierarchical, multidimensional
structure of SRL as the best model. Self-regulation was proven to be a higher-
order construct subsuming the nine lower-order writing strategies, relating to cog-
nitive, metacognitive, social-behavioral, and motivational regulation aspects. Teng
and Zhang (2018) concluded that their empirical data can be taken as preliminary
evidence for a transfer of SRL theory from educational psychology to the field of
L2/EFL education, particularly L2/EFL writing. Evidently, metacognition and self-
regulated learning are also intertwined with motivational control of the learning
process (Teng and Zhang 2016).
All of the above discussions point to the significance of the work spearheaded by
Wenden. The kind of metacognition under discussion is indeed “a body of knowl-
edge” (Wenden 1999, p. 435), which changes over time. Accordingly, Zhang and
Zhang (2013) posit that metacognition is in fact a dynamic system, where “meta-
cognition is something embedded in language learners, intertwined with many vari-
ables, both cognitive and sociocultural” (p. 347). Being complex and dynamic,
metacognition entails that learners’ metacognition has to undergo continuous change
Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) in Second/Foreign Language. . . 9

and adaptation, which are to be enacted upon by learners and induced by learning
tasks, task environments, and sociocultural-sociopolitical contexts, where learning
takes place in its “situated” locales. A dynamic system usually has many different
types of elements or variables at different levels in relation to the three key variables:
learners, tasks, and strategies. These variables are interlinked with one another and
also interact and change constantly in time. Wenden (2002) posits that metacognition
is a prerequisite to the deployment of self-regulatory processes in the self-regulation
of language learning. As Wenden (2002) states, metacognitive strategies including
planning, monitoring, and evaluating are essential to self-regulation, and “if these
strategies fail to make contact with a rich knowledge base, they are weak” (p. 50).
One may argue that metacognition in effect is inclusive of, and included in, many
elements of self-regulated learning theory.

Pedagogical Implications

There are a number of pedagogical implications from what researchers have

reported, as shown in our review in the sections above. Understandably, we need
to consider both students’ and teachers’ roles in realizing the goal of developing
students into self-regulated learners. We first look at how to help learners; then we
move on to examine how teachers and learners can play significant roles, either
individually in their own capacities or together as an interrelated system; and finally
we discuss how to take stock of metacognition and self-regulation for developing
students into self-regulated, metacognitively strong learners.

Focus on Students/Learners

Given the importance of metacognition and self-regulated learning, teachers should

encourage learners to use metacognitive strategies to improve their performance on
the basis of the metacognitive knowledge they have already acquired. If learners do
not have these strategies as part of their metacognitive knowledge, teachers should
consider sharing and modeling the strategies to facilitate the transfer of such
knowledge to them. Teachers going through the use of metacognitive strategies
with students provide opportunities for them to get the metacognitive experiences
they need so that they can revise their metacognitive knowledge for better meta-
cognitive regulation in their deployment of strategies for expediting their learning
process and enhancing learning effectiveness. Chamot (2005) posits that “evidence
that language learners actually engage in metacognitive knowledge and processes is
reported in most of the research on language learner strategies, both descriptive and
instructional” (p. 124). Therefore, having clear metacognitive knowledge paves the
way for students’ successful execution of the learning process, as shown in their own
self-regulation of what they learn, how, when, and why they learn things that are
regarded as important. Given that self-regulation is one of the prerequisite for
10 D. Zhang and L. J. Zhang

learning success, developing self-regulated learning capacity becomes a default goal

in language learning.

Focus on Teaching Metacognitive Strategies

Metacognitively scaffolded instruction has the potential of approximating the goal of

helping learners to improve performance, because through dialogic classroom pro-
cesses, learners are offered more options to actively engage in meaningful language
learning activities that foster self-regulated learning (Zhang 2007). O’Malley and
Chamot (1990) suggested a list of planning strategies that range from self-
management, advance preparation, advance organizers, directed attention, selective
attention, to delayed production. These strategies are what students should have in
their possession. Teachers’ systematic provision of guidance in how to use these
strategies helps language learners to make decisions on future action. Neil Anderson
(2002) proposed a metacognitive strategy model that has five steps: (1) preparing
and planning for learning, (2) selecting and using learning strategies, (3) monitoring
strategy use, (4) orchestrating various strategies, and (5) evaluating strategy use and
learning. This can be regarded as a working model. These metacognitive strategies
do not stand alone, and there is no rigid sequence, either. Therefore, teaching
students to think about their thinking regarding how various strategy combinations
would produce the best learning outcome should be a constant pedagogical strategy.
This is because “strong metacognitive skills empower second language learners”
(Anderson 2002, p. 6). Chamot’s (2009) Cognitive Academic Language Learning
Approach (CALLA) provides another useful tool for teachers to use conveniently. In
reference to the section above, students themselves can also use these frameworks as
a guide to train themselves to become “metacognitively strong” learners (Zhang
2007).

Students and Teachers Working Together Toward Learner

Autonomy

It is understood that metacognition embraces a range of beliefs, thinkings, under-

standings, behaviors, and strategies for current and future actions, which are most
often systematic (despite occasional slips) (Flavell 1979; see also Zhang and Zhang
2013). Teacher and student interactions around metacognitive knowledge and meta-
cognitive experiences are expected to boost students’ understanding of the impor-
tance of metacognitive regulation that results in self-regulated learning and learner
autonomy. Research shows that teachers’ metacognitively oriented instruction or
learner metacognitive training helps learners to develop high degrees of self-
awareness and efficacy and take active control of their learning (Plonsky 2011).
Teachers do so by enabling learners to coordinate their planning, organizing, and
evaluating of the learning processes. Their systematic engagement with students in
such metacognitive endeavors will reinforce students’ metacognitive experiences,
Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) in Second/Foreign Language. . . 11

which are comprised of metacognitive feelings, metacognitive judgments/estimates,

and online task-specific knowledge (knowledge that is being utilized while com-
pleting tasks).
Efklides (2009) posits that metacognitive experiences are “manifestations of the
online monitoring of cognition as the person comes across a task and processes the
information related to it” (p. 78). Promoting learner autonomy across language skills
is possible only when teachers and students have clear understandings about the
dynamic relations among metacognitive elements. In Flavell’s model as well as in
others, it is commonly understood that metacognitive experiences not only prompt
revision of metacognitive knowledge but also of additional metacognitive experi-
ences. Metacognitive strategies induce cognitive strategy use and revision of meta-
cognitive knowledge. Cognitive strategies produce metacognitive experiences.
Given that language learning success, to a great extent, depends on learner meta-
cognition, iterative processes above will be a great mobiliser for students who aspire
to be self-regulated or autonomous learners. Frontline teachers taking a “meta-
cognitively scaffolded instruction” approach (Zhang 2007) to teaching and learning
various skills (e.g., listening, speaking, reading, writing, vocabulary, and grammar)
via different platforms (e.g., iPads, iPhones, and the Internet, among many other
platforms) might find it beneficial to their students (Zhang 2016). It is particularly so
when learner autonomy is considered as an ultimate aim of the language instruction
program (Gao and Zhang 2011).
Despite minor differences among scholars on the exact definitions of learner
autonomy, most of these definitions share some commonality. For example, Holec
(1981, p. 3) defines autonomy as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning”;
Little (1991, 1996) lays more emphasis on the control over the cognitive process;
Pamberton (1996) is of the view that autonomy means that learners take responsi-
bility for the decisions concerning all aspects of this learning; Benson (2001, 2016)
thinks that autonomy is not so much a goal as an attitude and capacity to exert
control over learning. It follows that taking stock of our understanding of students’
metacognition and self-regulated learning with particular reference to their learning
aims or objectives will be a realistic consideration in order to take learner autonomy
as the final aim of language learning and teaching.
The significance of the interactive relationships between self-regulated learning
(Wenden 2002; Zhang 2017; Zimmerman and Schunk 2011) and metacognition
indicates that learners can draw on their metacognitive knowledge to make decisions
for smoother progress toward higher proficiency in the target language as part of the
effort toward learner autonomy. The same is also true for practitioners (and
researchers) who are committed to developing their students into highly competent
second/foreign language learners in classrooms and beyond. Vygotsky’s (1978) zone
of proximal development (ZPD) is significant to our understanding of how stronger
learners can assist their less strong peers in making progress. In Vygotsky’s theori-
zation, there is a distance between the “actual developmental level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined
through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable
peers” (p. 86). Therefore, the teacher and more capable peers, if required, will be able
12 D. Zhang and L. J. Zhang

to help less able students to speed up the process of learner autonomy. This is where
metacognition and self-regulated learning interact to achieve the common goal of
empowering learners (Wilson and Bai 2010).

Conclusion

This chapter intends to bring together two key notions, metacognition and self-
regulated learning, in order to bring to bear how they have been used in research and
pedagogy for purposes that were not clearly highlighted in the field of second/
foreign language education. Our provision of a theoretical basis for understanding
metacognition and self-regulated learning is for establishing the significance of
metacognition and self-regulated learning as important lenses through which
research, teaching, and learning can be better examined. Self-regulation and meta-
cognition have overlaps, but meanwhile, it is evident that they also have some
unique foci themselves. Therefore, language teachers may need to be selective
when they use these constructs to inform their teaching. Our attempt to clarify the
relationship between the seemingly different constructs, metacognition and self-
regulated learning, in relation to the learning and teaching of second/foreign lan-
guages is to take stock of what we have already known and apply that knowledge to
wider educational contexts for improving teaching and learning. Successful second/
foreign language learning and teaching is a joint endeavor that has to be undertaken
by both teachers and students. Their shared understandings of what it entails when
they talk about the enterprise of language teaching and learning, what knowledge
base they should develop, how to use that knowledge base for executing the learning
and teaching plan, and when, where, and why they have to pool resources together
for successful learning to happen are all necessary elements that students and
teachers have to consider; it is particularly important if teachers wish to help their
students to become autonomous learners. After all, the whole process of language
learning and teaching is really to develop students into lifelong learners, who are
eager to shoulder responsibilities in order to develop into autonomous learners.
Strong metacognitive awareness can easily guide them in their journey to achieve
self-regulated learning capacity in order to take charge of their own learning.

Cross-References

▶ Language Learner Engagement: Setting the Scene

References
Anderson JR (1981) The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Anderson NJ (2002) The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. ERIC
digest. Center for Applied Linguistic, Washington, DC
Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) in Second/Foreign Language. . . 13

Benson P (2001) Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning, 2nd edn. Longman,
Harlow
Benson P (2016) Language learner autonomy: exploring teachers’ perspectives on theory and
practice. In: Barnard R, Li J (eds) Language learner autonomy: teachers’ beliefs and practices
in Asian contexts. IDP Education, Phnom Penh, pp xxxiii–xl
Chamot AU (2005) Language learning strategy instruction: current issues and research. Annu Rev
Appl Linguist 25:112–130
Chamot AU (2009) The CALLA handbook: implementing the cognitive academic language
learning approach, 2nd edn. Pearson Education/Longman, White Plains
Cohen AD (1998) Strategies in learning and using a second language. Longman, New York
Cohen AD, Griffith C (2015) Revisiting LLS research 40 years later. TESOL Q 49:414–429
De Silva R, Graham S (2015) The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students
of different proficiency levels. System 53(3):47–59
Dinsmore DL, Alexander PA, Loughlin SM (2008) Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition,
self-regulation and self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol Rev 20:391–409
Dörnyei Z (2005) The psychology of the language learner: individual differences in second
language acquisition. Erlbaum, Mahwah
Efklides A (2009) The role of metacognitive experiences in the learning process. Psicothema 21
(1):76–82
Flavell JH (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In: Resnick LB (ed) The nature of
intelligence. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 231–235
Flavell JH (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive– developmental
inquiry. Am Psychol 34(10):906–911
Flavell J (1981) Cognitive monitoring. In P. Dickson (Ed.), Children’s oral communication skills.
Academic Press, New York, pp 35–60
Fox E, Riconscente M (2008) Metacognition and self-regulation in James, Piaget, and Vygotsky.
Educ Psychol Rev 20(4):373–389
Gao X (2006) Has language learning strategy research come to an end? A response to Tseng,
Dornyei and Schmitt. Appl Linguist 28(4):615–620
Gao X, Zhang LJ (2011) Joining forces for synergy: agency and metacognition as interrelated
theoretical perspectives on learner autonomy. In: Murray G, Gao X, Lamb T (eds) Identity,
motivation and autonomy: exploring the links. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, pp 25–41
Goh C (1998) How ESL learners with different listening abilities use comprehension strategies and
tactics. Lang Teach Res 2(2):124–147
Goh C (2008) Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development theory, prac-
tice, and research implications. RELC J 39(2):188–213
Goh C, Hu G (2014) Exploring the relationship between metacognitive awareness and listening
performance with questionnaire data. Lang Aware 23(3):255–274
Hacker DJ (1998) Definitions and empirical foundations. In: Hacker DJ, Dunlosky J, Graesser AC
(eds) Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Routledge, New York, pp 1–23
Hattie J, Timperley H (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77
(1):81–112.
Haukås A (2018) Metacognition in language learning: theoretical perspectives. In: Haukås Å,
Bjørke C, Dypedahl M (eds) Metacognition in language learning and teaching. Routledge,
London
Holec H (1981) Autonomy and foreign language learning. Pergamon Press, Oxford
Hu J, Gao XA (2018) Self-regulated strategic writing for academic studies in an English-medium-
instruction context. Lang Educ, online first. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2017.1373804
Kaplan A (2008) Clarifying metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: what’s the
purpose? Educ Psychol Rev 20:477–484
Lam WK (2010) Metacognitive strategy teaching in the ESL oral classroom: ripple effect on
non-target strategy use. Aust Rev Appl Linguist 33(1):1–19
Little D (1991) Learner autonomy: definitions, issues and problems. Authentik, Dublin
14 D. Zhang and L. J. Zhang

Little D (1996) Freedom to learn and compusion to interact: Promoting learner autonomy through
the use of information systems and information technologies. In: Pemberton R, Li ESL, Or
WWF, Pierson HD (eds) Taking control – autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong Univer-
sity Press, Hong Kong, pp 203–218
McCormick CB (2003) Metacognition and learning. In: Lerner RM, Easterbrooks MA, Mistry J
(eds) Handbook of psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 79–102
O’Malley M, Chamot AU (1990) Learning strategies in language acquisition. Oxford University
Press, Oxford
Ong J (2014) How do planning time and task conditions affect metacognitive processes of L2
writers? J Second Lang Writ 23:17–30
Oxford R (1990) Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Heinle & Heinle,
Boston
Papaleontiou-Louca E (2008) Metacognition and theory of mind. Cambridge Scholars, Cambridge,
UK
Paris SG, Winograd P (1990) How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction.
In: Jones BF, Idol L (eds) Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Erlbaum, Hillsdale,
pp 15–51
Pemberton R (1996) Inroduction. In: Pemberton R, Li ESL, Or WWF, Pierson HD (eds) Taking
control – autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, pp 1–8.
Plonsky L (2011) The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: a meta-analysis. Lang
Learn 61(4):993–1038
Qin TL (2018) Metacognitive perspectives on learning to write in English as a foreign language
(EFL) in multimedia environments at the tertiary level in China. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Auckland, New Zealand
Rose H (2011) Reconceptualizing strategic learning in the face of self-regulation: throwing lan-
guage learning strategies out with the bathwater. Appl Linguist 33(1):92–98
Rose H, Briggs JG, Boggs JA, Sergio L, Ivanova-Slavianskaia N (2018) A systematic review of
language learner strategy research in the face of self-regulation. System 72:151–163
Ruan Z (2014) Metacognitive awareness of EFL student writers in a Chinese ELT context. Lang
Aware 23(1–2):76–91
Schraw G (1998) Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instr Sci 26(1):113–125
Tarricone P (2011) The taxonomy of metacognition. Psychology Press, Hove
Teng LS, Zhang LJ (2016) A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models of self-
regulated learning strategies. Mod Lang J 100(3):674–701
Teng LS, Zhang LJ (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.
Metacogn Learn 13(2):213–240
Vandergrift L, Goh C (2012) Teaching and learning second language listening: metacognition in
action. Routledge, New York
Veenman MVJ, van Hout-Wolters B, Afflerbach P (2006) Metacognition and learning: conceptual
and methodological considerations. Metacogn Learn 1(1):3–14
Victori M (1999) An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: a case study of two effective
and two less effective writers. System 27(4):537–556
Vygotskiĭ LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA
Wei J, Chen J, Adawu A (2014) Teaching ESL beginners metacognitive writing strategies through
multimedia software. CATESOL J 26(1):60–75
Wenden A (1987a) Metacognition: an expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learners. Lang
Learn 37(4):573–597
Wenden AL (1987b) How to be a successful language learner: insights and prescriptions from L2
learners. In: Wenden A, Rubin J (eds) Learner strategies in language learning. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, pp 103–117
Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) in Second/Foreign Language. . . 15

Wenden AL (1991) Learner strategies for learner autonomy: planning and implementing learner
training for language learners. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Wenden AL (1998) Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Appl Linguis 19(4):515–537
Wenden AL (1999) An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning:
beyond the basics. System 27(4):435–441
Wenden AL (2002) Learner development in language learning. Appl Linguist 23(1):32–55
White C (1995) Autonomy and strategy use in distance foreign language learning: research
findings. System 23(2):207–221
Wilson NS, Bai H (2010) The relationships and impact of teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and
pedagogical understandings of metacognition. Metacogn Learn 5(3):269–288
Zhang LJ (2001) Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading
strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Lang Aware 10(4):268–288
Zhang D (2004) “Your English is too cheem?” Singaporean student listening difficulty and tackling
strategies. Asian Englishes 7(1):74–91
Zhang LJ (2007) Developing learner metacognition in English language classrooms in Singapore.
Invited country speaker report delivered at the 12th International ESEA Conference: Trends and
Directions, 12–14 December, 2007, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
(KMUTT), Bangkok, Thailand
Zhang LJ (2008) Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction: exploring pathways to
learner development in the English as a second language (ESL) classroom. Instr Sci 36
(2):89–116
Zhang LJ (2010) A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’
knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Q 44(2):320–353
Zhang LJ (2011) Metacognitive strategy-based instruction for developing self-regulated, meta-
cognitively-strong English-Chinese bi-literacy learners in primary schools. Invited seminar,
11 May 2011, Institute of Education, University of Reading, UK
Zhang LJ (2016) A dynamic metacognitive systems perspective on language learner autonomy. In:
Barnard R, Li J (eds) Language learner autonomy: teachers’ beliefs and practices in east Asian
contexts. IDP Education (Cambodia), Phnom Penh, pp 150–166
Zhang LJ (2017) Learner agency and metacognition as organising frameworks for enhancing
English language teaching and learning: Person and context in praxis across platforms. Invited
Plenary Address delivered at the 13th CamTESOL International Conference, 18–19 February
2017, the Institute of Technology Cambodia (ITC), Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Zhang D, Goh C (2006) Strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use: Singaporean students’
awareness of listening and speaking strategies. Lang Aware 15(3):199–219
Zhang LJ, Qin TL (2018) Learner metacognition and the learning of EFL writing in a multimedia
environment. In: Haukås Å, Bjørke C, Dypedahl M (eds) Metacognition in language learning
and teaching. Routledge, London
Zhang LJ, Zhang D (2008) Metacognition, metalinguistic knowledge, self-regulation and foreign
language teaching and learning. Foreign Lang Educ China Q 1(1):56–65
Zhang LJ, Zhang D (2013) Thinking metacognitively about metacognition in second and foreign
language learning, teaching, and research: toward a dynamic metacognitive systems perspec-
tive. Contemp Foreign Lang Stud 396(12):346–361
Zhang LJ, Zhang D (2018) Metacognition in TESOL: theory and practice. In: Liontas J, Shehadeh
A (eds) The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, vol II. Wiley, Malden, pp
682–792
Zhang LJ, Aryadoust V, Zhang D (2016) Taking stock of the effects of strategies-based instruction
on writing in Chinese and English in Singapore primary schools. In: Silver RE, Bokhorst-Heng
W (eds) Quadrilingual education in Singapore: pedagogical innovation in language education.
Springer, New York, pp 103–126
Zimmerman B, Schunk DH (2011) Self-regulated learning and performance. In: Zimmerman B,
Schunk DH (eds) Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. Routledge,
London, pp 1–12