Assessing Self-Regulated Writing Strategies Working Memory L2 Proficiency Level and Multimedia Writing Performance

Language Awareness
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20
Assessing self-regulated writing strategies,

working memory, L2 proficiency level, and
multimedia writing performance
Mark Feng Teng & Lawrence Jun Zhang
To cite this article: Mark Feng Teng & Lawrence Jun Zhang (12 Jan 2024): Assessing self-
regulated writing strategies, working memory, L2 proficiency level, and multimedia writing
performance, Language Awareness, DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2023.2300269
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2023.2300269
Published online: 12 Jan 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 288
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmla20
Language Awareness
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2023.2300269
Assessing self-regulated writing strategies, working

memory, L2 proficiency level, and multimedia writing
performance
Mark Feng Tenga and Lawrence Jun Zhangb
a
Faculty of Languages and Translation, Macau Polytechnic University, Macau, Macau SAR; bFaculty of Education
& Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper presents two empirical studies. Study 1 validated a survey Received 23 August 2023
on L2 self-regulated strategies in writing in a multimedia environment. Accepted 20 December 2023
Study 2 examined the relationship of Chinese students’ working mem- KEYWORDS
ory to their L2 English proficiency and self-regulated learning (SRL) Self-regulated learning;
strategies in multimedia writing. A total of 400 Chinese university multimedia writing;
students participated in Study 1, and they responded to a survey on working memory; English
SRL strategy use in multimedia writing. A total of 406 Chinese univer- proficiency; writing
sity students attended Study 2. They completed the survey and an performance
operation span task (a measure of working memory). All the partici-
pants’ English proficiency was evaluated using the College English
Test-4, a standardized test for undergraduate students in China.
Results of Study 1 revealed a 5-factor SRL strategy structure consisting
of goal setting, strategic planning, elaboration, self-evaluation, and
help seeking. Results of Study 2 suggested the predicted effects of
self-regulated strategies, working memory, and L2 proficiency on L2
writing performance. Findings also demonstrated the moderation
effects of English proficiency on the effects of self-regulated writing
strategies. Implications for enhancing writing in multimedia environ-
ments are provided.
ABSTRACT IN CHINESE
本文汇报了两项实证研究。第一项研究验证了在多媒体环境中进行
二语自主调控写作策略的调查问卷。第二项研究探讨了中国学生的
工作记忆, 英语水平以及多媒体写作中的自主调控写作策略之间的
关系。共有400名中国大学生参与了第一项研究，并回答了关于多媒
体写作中自主学习策略使用的调查问卷。第二项研究有406名中国大
学生参与。他们完成了调查问卷和操作跨度任务(一种工作记忆测量
方法)。所有参与者的英语水平都通过一项中国本科生的标准化考
试，即大学英语四级考试，进行了评估。第一项研究的结果显示，自主
学习策略包括目标设定、战略规划、详细阐述、自我评估和求助，共五
个因素。第二项研究的结果表明，自主调控策略、工作记忆和英语水
平对二语写作表现具有预测效应。研究结果还显示，英语水平对自主
调控写作策略的效果具有调节作用。该研究对于提升多媒体环境下
的写作具有重要借鉴意义。
CONTACT Mark Feng Teng markteng@mpu.edu.mo Faculty of Languages and Translation, Macau Polytechnic
University, Macau, Macau SAR
© 2024 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. TENG AND L. J. ZHANG
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

We reported the findings of two empirical studies. In Study 1, we
tested a survey to see how well it measured learners’ self-regulated
strategies in a multimedia environment. In Study 2, we looked at learn-
ers’ working memory, proficiency, and learners’ self-regulated strate-
gies in a multimedia environment. The results of Study 1 showed that
there are five main strategies students use when writing. They include
goal setting, strategic planning, elaboration, self-evaluation, and
help-seeking. The results of Study 2 showed that learners’ working
memory, proficiency, and learners’ self-regulated strategies are essen-
tial to their writing performance. The results also supported the idea
that English proficiency plays a moderating role in the relationship
between self-regulation and writing. When English proficiency was
low, self-regulation had a greater impact on writing performance;
conversely, when English proficiency was high, self-regulation had a
smaller effect on writing performance. However, the present study
did not identify a statistically significant interaction effect between
working memory and self-regulation. Working memory may not affect
self-regulation in students’ writing outcomes. This study, thus, con-
tributes to teachers’, teacher educators’, policy makers’, and practi-
tioners’ knowledge in terms of self-regulation, working memory, and
proficiency in a multimedia writing environment.
Introduction
Alongside technological advances, writing instruction via multimedia platforms has become
nearly essential in tertiary-level English instruction (Liu et al., 2023; Peeters & Mynard, 2023;
Qin & Zhang, 2019; Teng, 2021; Zhang & Qin, 2018). Innovations in multimedia technologies
highlight the need to understand learners’ strategies when adapting to multimedia writing
requirements (Sweeny, 2010; Zhang & Qin, 2018). The proliferation of technology can help
learners seize the benefits of multimedia writing to produce expository, descriptive, narrative,
and argumentative texts (Kress, 2003). Multimedia technologies can help learners become
familiar with multiple literacies and enhance their writing competence (Wolsey & Grisham,
2012). In the present study, multimedia writing is conceptualized as a collaborative enterprise
in which student writers use multimedia tools that can offer them opportunities to access
and use different content forms, including text, audio, images, or video. Student writers are
also afforded opportunities to exchange feedback with their teachers and peers for possible
enhancements of their writing. Writing instruction via multimedia platforms provides an
authentic environment that can positively influence learners’ writing by providing automated
feedback and more opportunities for students to practice their writing. Multimedia tools
(e.g. online discussion boards, webpages, and blogs) also allow learners to share their work
with peers and teachers online. Such collaboration can help learners connect, collaborate,
and problem-solve with other learners when writing an academic essay. Such sharing can
ultimately motivate students, including struggling student-writers, to reflect on their aca-
demic writing development, and more importantly, on their writing competence.
While we acknowledge the merits of multimedia use in writing instruction, it is important
to consider learners’ readiness to engage in multimedia-based academic writing. In particular,
learners’ self-regulated capacity, an ability to exert control over their critical thinking skills
(Teng & Yue, 2023), thoughts and actions and to strategically adopt such tools for writing
Language Awareness 3
purposes, is a major predictor of writing performance (Teng et al., 2022; Teng & Zhang, 2016).
Learners may learn to write without capitalizing on the benefits of particular technological
tools for autonomous language learning (Hafner & Miller, 2011). Instructors may need to help
learners foster their self-regulatory capacity to confront challenges in multimedia writing.
Learners’ readiness to benefit from multimedia writing also depends on working memory.
In multimedia learning, information is presented in two or more formats, such as words and
pictures (Mayer, 1997). Meaningful learning occurs when an individual can retain and orga-
nize relevant information into a coherent representation. Research supports the beneficial
effects of multimedia tools for writing (Qin & Zhang, 2019). Multimedia writing is related to
Baddeley’s (1998) working memory model, wherein working memory maintains and manip-
ulates information. Individual differences in working memory have been frequently acknowl-
edged as factors that influence learners’ writing performance. As noted by Gyselinck et al.
(2008), learners may differ in their working memory capacity, which may influence their
cognitive effort required for different tasks and their motivation to engage in certain tasks.
In addition, learners’ English proficiency level may influence their capacity to execute
cognitive processes related to language production, as clearly shown in a meta-analytic
study (Linck et al., 2014). Despite its theoretical foundation, this line of research has not been
sufficiently documented, and it is particularly important that we explore whether, and more
importantly, how students’ English proficiency level contributes to multimedia writing. A
more thorough understanding of how students’ English proficiency level affects multimedia
writing is essential to multimedia writing instruction.
Many empirical studies have examined self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies in EFL writ-
ing (Teng & Huang, 2019; Teng & Zhang, 2016). Some have focused on SRL strategies in EFL
multimedia writing settings (Qin & Zhang, 2019; Zhang & Qin, 2018), and others in online
settings (Peeters & Mynard, 2023). However, the various dimensions of SRL strategies on mul-
timedia writing performance vis-à-vis working memory and English proficiency remain under-
explored. To bridge this gap, this article presents two empirical studies. Study 1 validated a
survey on self-regulated strategies in EFL multimedia writing settings. Study 2 examined the
effects of individual differences in self-regulated writing strategies, working memory, and the
L2 proficiency level on L2 multimedia writing performance. The selection of working memory
and L2 proficiency as key factors in our study is based on their significant roles in language
learning and their direct relevance to the specific task of multimedia writing. Working memory
is widely recognized as a critical cognitive resource in language learning (Wen et al., 2023). It
is involved in the temporary storage and manipulation of information, which is particularly
important in tasks like multimedia writing that require processing and integrating multiple
modalities simultaneously. The ability to hold and manipulate information in the working
memory is crucial for effectively organizing and expressing ideas in a multimedia writing
context. L2 proficiency, on the other hand, was chosen as an essential factor due to its estab-
lished impact on language learning outcomes and as an indispensable measure of students’
progress and achievement. Proficiency in the target language directly influences learners’
ability to express their thoughts and ideas accurately and fluently in writing. In the case of
multimedia writing, proficiency becomes even more relevant as it encompasses not only
linguistic aspects but also the integration of visual and auditory information, which are integral
to the task. The results of these two empirical studies explored in the present study help us
learn more about SRL strategies, working memory, second language English proficiency, and
performance in multimedia writing. They also shed light on important factors that affect how
well students write in a foreign language when using multimedia.
Literature review
Validation of self-regulated strategies
Self-regulated learning (SRL) involves environmental, behavioral, and personal processes,
and writing depends on learners’ self-regulated capacity (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997).
Self-regulated learners set goals, make changes and adjustments to the goals as well as the
strategies during the performance phase, and reflect upon the process in order to have
better performance in the future. Forethought, performance, and self-reflection are key to
the learning cycle. Self-regulation reflects the extent to which learners exercise agency over
their learning, and learners with better self-regulated capacity tend to be more self-
efficacious, leading to better writing performance (Teng & Wang, 2022). Self-regulation is
also a dynamic concept, highlighting learners’ capacity to devote ‘strategic [effort] to manage
their own achievement through specific beliefs and processes’ (Zimmerman & Risemberg,
1997, p. 105). Learners with a stronger self-regulatory capacity are better able to develop an
awareness of the relationship between self-regulatory capacity and learning outcomes; they
can also more easily adopt strategies to achieve their academic goals (Zimmerman, 2013).
Based on the theory of self-regulation, studies were conducted to validate various SRL
strategies through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). For example, Teng and Zhang (2016)
validated nine SRL strategies: peer learning, text processing, course memory, idea planning,
interest enhancement, goal-oriented monitoring and evaluating, feedback handling, moti-
vational self-talk, and emotional control, in the EFL writing context. The six strategies reflected
the multifaceted structure of SRL strategies. The six strategies were classified into four dimen-
sions of self-regulation: cognition, metacognition, social behavior, and motivational regu-
lation. Results showed that a single higher-order common factor, self-regulation, accounted
for the correlations of the nine strategies. Zhang and Qin (2018) validated three types of
metacognitive strategies: planning, monitoring, and evaluating, in a multimedia writing
context. They proposed three models: a three-factor uncorrelated model (Model one), a
three-factor, second-order correlated model (Model two), and a one-higher-order factor
with three-second-order subcategories correlated model (Model three). Results based on
CFA showed that the three-factor model (model three) was robust and of good construct
validity and reliability. The validation of self-regulated strategies in a multimedia environment
is essential, considering that new writing strategies are required in such environments and
that learners may need to modify their traditional writing strategies in a multimedia
environment.
Self-regulated strategies and writing

Being able to write and write well depends, to a great extent, on learners’ self-regulated
capacity (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997) or metacognition (Teng, 2019b; Teng et al., 2022;
Teng & Zhang, 2018). Numerous models have delineated the relationship between self-
regulation and writing. In addition to the models presented by Flower and Hayes (1980) and
Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987), Graham (2018) presented a revised writer(s)-within-
community model of writing where writing is conceptualized as a social activity, accom-
plished by the members in the writing community. This writing community includes social,
cultural, political, institutional, and historical influences. Previous models highlighted
cognitive aspects of writing, but Graham’s (2018) model merges cognitive perspectives and
sociocultural perspectives and results in a richer and fuller understanding of writing. Teng
and Huang (2019) further explained that writing is an inherently cognitive act, featuring
differences between expert and novice student writers. For example, expert student writers
are more likely than novice student writers to plan, translate, monitor, and review their
written products. Qin and Zhang (2019) also explored EFL learners’ proficiency level in con-
ducting self-regulated writing. For example, compared to expert writers who can develop
and sustain affective experiences and motivation more easily, novices appear less likely to
plan, monitor, and evaluate their writing output. These differences between novice and
expert student writers could be due to the nature of writing, which is ‘self-planned, self-
initiated, and self-sustained’. Thus, learners require ‘self-initiated thoughts, feelings, and
actions’ to enhance their writing skills (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997, p. 76). Skilled student
writers may be better able to discern how to employ SRL strategies to control their writing
process and therefore demonstrate better writing performance.
Experimental studies have also shed light on the benefits of SRL strategies in the
writing context. For example, Teng (2016) explored training in metacognitive writing
strategies, including metacognitive knowledge and regulation, and concluded that
instruction in metacognitive writing strategies can facilitate Chinese EFL learners’ writing
performance. He specifically pointed out that ‘self-regulating behaviors can be taught in
class time’ and that, once these behaviors are internalized, ‘students continue to use them
and focus their attention on the content they are learning, which may improve their
writing performance’ (p. 299). These findings support Hacker et al.’s (2009) contention
that learners who build metacognitive awareness can assume a ‘privileged position’ in
which they are able to ‘generate the thoughts they wish to write, and monitor and control
that generation of thoughts’ (p. 161). More recently, Teng (2020) focused on incorporating
the collaborative modeling of text structure into SRL strategy development for elementary
school students (Grade 6). Results revealed that training in SRL strategies (e.g. planning,
monitoring, evaluating, goal setting, self-assessment, and self-reinforcement) and text
structure knowledge could lead to stronger reading and writing performance. The poten-
tial of SRL strategies for writing was also observed in a study by Sasaki et al. (2018), who
examined 37 Japanese university students’ development trajectories in global planning,
local planning, and L1-to-L2 translation. In another study on L2 elementary school stu-
dents’ writing development, Teng (2019b) reported that automaticity in SRL strategies
resulted in ‘spare attentional resources that contributed to high-level processes of gen-
erating ideas and organizing them into sentences’ (p. 292).
Previous studies have explored multimedia writing contexts. For example, Zhang and Qin
(2018) considered 400 Chinese EFL learners’ reported strategies related to multimedia writing
and found that learners with strong metacognitive awareness of strategy use demonstrated
outstanding writing performance. Multimedia writing also calls for learners to ‘plan ahead
and organize their thoughts and materials to ensure a good foundation for producing an
effective piece of writing’ (p. 168). Similarly, Qin and Zhang (2019) compared low- and
high-proficiency Chinese EFL student writers in a multimedia writing context. Compared to
low-proficiency learners, high-proficiency learners reported greater use of metacognitive
knowledge (e.g. planning, monitoring, and evaluating). As argued by Azevedo (2010), ‘the
complex interaction of mediating cognitive, metacognitive, and social processes’ (p. 193)
requires learners’ metacognitive awareness of self-regulation. Writing in multimedia-mediated
learning environments thus appeared contingent on student writers’ knowledge of meta-

cognitive strategies.
Our review of the literature suggests that there is a need to understand EFL students’ SRL
writing strategies in multimedia environments. Various strategies warrant further examina-
tion in multimedia writing environments. We further argue that EFL students’ multimedia
writing should be examined through a multidimensional lens, including SRL strategies com-
prising cognitive, metacognitive, social–behavioral, and motivational components. As we
have argued in the introduction, learners need to have a good working memory in order to
benefit from multimedia writing due to the large amounts of information to be processed.
Working memory and writing

Working memory – an executive system that manipulates information – was differentiated
from short-term memory, a storage-based system (Baddeley, 1998). According to Baddeley
and Hitch (1974), working memory includes multiple components, including a central exec-
utive and the two slave systems, that is, the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketch-
pad. The central executive is responsible for the flow of information. The two slave systems
are responsible for specific types of information processing. Repovs and Baddeley (2006)
later explained that the multi-component model includes a central executive that controls
the flow of information to two unimodal storage systems (a phonological loop and a visu-
ospatial sketchpad) along with a fourth component, the episodic buffer, which can integrate
information into unitary episodic representations.
Working memory is a key variable in L2 learning, as this type of memory plays a key role
in the chunking process during language acquisition (Ellis, 1996). A meta-analysis by Linck
et al. (2014) found that working memory capacity is significantly associated with L2 learning
outcomes with an effect size (ρ) of .255. The role of working memory in writing reflects the
cognitive model of writing (Flower & Hayes, 1980); i.e. writing is not simply a matter of
translating preconceived ideas into text but a process of creating content and tailoring it to
readers’ needs. In addition, writing embodies an interaction between a range of processes,
and the activity places high demands on learners’ limited working memory capacity. In this
vein, Kellogg’s (1996) model of working memory in writing clearly indicates, for example,
that demands placed on learners to plan ideas, translate them into sentences, and review
them require the three components of working memory (i.e. the central executive, the pho-
nological loop, and the visuospatial sketchpad). From the above models, one may assume
that writing requires learners to store knowledge in memory about a writing topic and the
specific language needed to compose texts and then retrieve the knowledge for use when
necessary.
Empirical studies have explored working memory and writing as well. For instance, Révész
et al. (2017) investigated the relationship between Chinese L2 learners’ working memory
capacity and writing outcomes. Thirty learners completed working memory tests (including
digit span, operation span, and so forth). Findings suggested that learners with stronger
task-switching ability were better able to update information and produce higher-quality
writing. In a more recent study (Michel et al., 2019), 94 young learners (grades 6 and 7)
completed several working memory tests, including digit span and symmetry span tasks,
followed by writing tasks such as editing, email-writing, offering an opinion, and listen–write
tasks. Results showed partial support for the role of working memory in writing. Although
working memory functioning had a limited effect on learners’ L2 writing scores, these learn-
ers’ working memory capacity influenced the academic editing task and the integrated
listen–write task in Grade 7. Full support for working memory in writing was noted in another
study focusing on French/English bilingual students between 12 and 15 years old (Adams
& Guillot, 2008). In this case, learners completed three working memory tasks (i.e. involving
verbal working memory, visuospatial working memory, and phonological short-term mem-
ory skills). Results indicated that individual differences in writing reflected variations in work-
ing memory capacity.
Working memory also plays a pertinent role in multimedia learning. For instance, results
from a study with 96 learners in multimedia learning contexts showed that multimedia
learning tasks that required the integration of elements from verbal descriptions and pictorial
depictions placed greater demands on learners’ working memory resources (Dutke & Rinck,
2006). These findings underscore the need to measure how individual differences in working
memory capacity influence performance on multimedia-supported learning tasks. Another
study with 44 learners with low working memory capacity and 40 learners with high working
memory capacity (as evidenced by the O-Span task) showed significant interaction effects
between working memory capacity and the learning environment (Doolittle & Mariano,
2008). As argued by Schüler et al. (2011), ‘theories of multimedia learning assign a pivotal
role to working memory in learning from text and pictures’ (p. 392). Given the relative lack
of studies on multimedia writing, it is worthwhile to empirically examine how working mem-
ory is involved in this form of writing.
English proficiency level and writing

L2 English proficiency has yielded mixed results as a factor for L2 writing. Early research
has documented that learners’ L2 linguistic proficiency did not seem to influence their L2
writing development (Raimes, 1985). Some students could write well, and others could
not, but their L2 proficiency was not an important factor to be considered. One reason, as
argued by Raimes (1985), was that the L2 skilled student writers appeared to have special
writing strategies and certain writing competence; thus learners’ linguistic competence
was not a determinant factor in writing quality. Pennington and So (1993), who argued
that L2 proficiency is one important factor for L2 writing products, refuted this claim. For
example, students’ L2 proficiency distinguished good student writers from weak ones.
Such findings were later supported by Sasaki and Hirose (1996), a study that focused on
Japanese students’ writing quality. Their results supported the predictive role of L2 profi-
ciency, L1 writing ability, and metaknowledge. In particular, L2 proficiency explained the
largest portion (52%) of the L2 writing quality variance, followed by L1 writing ability
(18%), and metaknowledge (11%). Wong and Storey (2006) supported the importance of
declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge in L2 writing. In addition, high-
proficiency students demonstrated greater awareness and performed better in writing
than low-proficiency students.
Bai et al. (2014) explored 1618 pupils from two primary schools in Singapore. Results
based on one-way ANOVA supported the significant relationship between writing strategies
and English proficiency. In particular, learners with a higher level of English appeared to
use more frequently planning, text-generating, revising, monitoring and evaluating, and
resourcing strategies. Ma and Teng (2021), a qualitative study that concentrated on Hong
Kong students, further explained such findings. Ma and Teng’s (2021) interview data illus-
trated why some learners demonstrated better writing performance than others. One rea-
son, as supported by their findings, could be student writers’ awareness of metacognitive
strategies in writing. Most importantly, learners who were of higher proficiency level were
better able to develop such awareness.
Purposes of this research

The present investigation examined the factor structure and construct validity and internal
consistency of a self-report measure regarding self-regulated learning strategies in a multi-
media learning environment (Study 1) and assessed the predictive effect of working memory
capacity, English-language proficiency, and self-regulated learning strategies on writing
performance, as well as possible moderation effects (Study 2).
Study 1
This study was to validate the developed instrument for assessing learners’ SRL strategies in
multimedia writing. It aims to answer the following research question: To what extent is the
scale of SRL strategies for multimedia writing reliable?
Method
Participants
This study involved 400 university students from a tertiary-level institution in China. The
university is a medium-sized comprehensive university in the southwestern part of the coun-
try. All participants were Chinese second-year students in various majors, including market-
ing, communication, finance, and accounting. Their ages ranged from 18 to 20 years old (230
men and 170 women). The mean age was 19.13 (SD = 1.34). The learners volunteered for this
study. As an ethics requirement, those who completed all the research requirements received
a coupon as a way of showing our appreciation of the time they spent on completing the
task. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the university where
the first author is a full-time faculty member. The participants signed the consent form on
a voluntary basis.
Multimedia writing course

In their first year, all students were required to take an English course called College English.
Writing was not a standalone course but a sub-component of the College English course.
This course is intended to help students improve their listening, reading, speaking, and
writing skills. Students then take a course called Multimedia Writing in their second year.
This is a new course for all non-English major second-year students, hence our focus on
second-year students in this study. The purpose of the multimedia writing course is to help
students become more effective communicators through using different kinds of writing
tools in digital environments. Different multimedia writing tools, Pigaiwang, Mixxer, and
Livemocha, were used in the course.
Self-Regulation Scale for Multimedia Writing

The development of the Self-regulation Scale for Multimedia Writing (SRSMW) went through
three steps: Consultation of relevant theories and related literature; cross-checking with
interviews; exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
Consultation of relevant theories and related literature. Consultation of relevant

theories and related literature provided theoretical validation. Scale items were
generated based on established questionnaires on metacognition and self-regulation
in L1 and L2 contexts (Pintrich et al., 1991; Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Teng, 2019a; Teng
et al., 2022; Teng & Zhang, 2016; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). We referred to social
cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) and self-regulation theory (Boekaerts, 1995) as well.
Ultimately, we borrowed and adapted items displaying sound psychometric properties,
thus following an effective procedure for developing valid and reliable items (Creswell,
2012).
Cross-checking with interviews. Semi-structured interviews with students were

administered to offer empirical validation of item construction. We derived items from
semi-structured interviews with 10 s-year students who did not attend the main study.
Interview questions focused on how students regulated their writing, the resources
they used during the learning-to-write process, and their strategies for planning,
monitoring, and evaluating their writing (see Appendix 1 for the interview protocol).
These questions were meant to elicit students’ ideas on writing-related self-regulation
in a multimedia writing context. Interviews lasted 20–30 min. We believed that
involving students in the item-generating process would help us validate items from
the literature and incorporate items suited to the EFL multimedia writing context. We
also invited the 10 students to check the items for clarity. The items were developed in
English. We then translated the instrument into Chinese for participants’ easier
understanding. We also employed the translation-back method to minimize bias and
misconceptions in translation. The initial version after this step included 41 items.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Next, we performed an EFA, which was based on a
total of 501 students who volunteered for this study. They were also second-year non-
English major students who were not participants for CFA. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value
was 0.947. This value was larger than 0.05, appropriate for EFA (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001). The results on Bartlett’s test of sphericity were significant, p < .001; thus, the
matrix was suitable for factor analysis. We then adopted the common factor extraction
method, that is, maximum likelihood estimation, which assumes an underlying
correlated factor structure and accounts for these intercorrelations, to extract factors.
The Kaiser criterion of using eigenvalues was greater than 1. We extracted five factors,
which explained 73.149% of the variance. Based on the following criteria: the
eigenvalues must be greater than 1 for the factor, one factor must include at least 5
items, and the factor loadings must be higher than 0.4 (Field, 2009), we deleted 16
items. The final SRSMW included 25 items across five factors, which were named
based on metacognition and self-regulation theories (Pintrich et al., 1991; Schraw &
Dennison, 1994).
We named the five factors as goal setting, strategic planning, elaboration, self-
evaluation, and help-seeking, all of which were clustered under a common factor
(i.e. self-regulation) (Appendix 2). The first factor (goal setting) consisted of five writing
strategies. Goal setting strategies involved different phases of self-regulation: forethought
(setting a goal for multimedia writing [item 2]); performance control (employing goal-
directed actions [items 4 and 5]) and monitoring performance (item 1); and self-reflection
on using various multimedia tools (item 3). The second factor (strategic planning) included
five validated strategies: course preparation (item 6), evaluation of multimedia platforms
(item 7), planning and evaluating strategies (item 8), time management (item 9), and
online resource planning (item 10). The third factor (elaboration) focused on relating the
learned to prior knowledge (items 13 and 14), using online information (items 11 and 12),
and providing details to explain a social phenomenon (item 15). The fourth factor (self-
evaluation) included learners’ self-assessment of language use (item 19), course evaluation
(items 18 and 20), content evaluation (item 16), and multimedia tool evaluation (item 17).
The fifth factor (help-seeking) can be described as a strategy that requires learners to
collaborate with other learners to promote writing performance, mainly focusing on
teacher and student help (items 21–25).
Items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). The reliability of scale items was satisfactory (see the Results section).
Procedures and analyses

The purpose of this study and the research invitation were sent through the university email
system. The participants completed the survey through WeChat, a popular social media
platform widely used in China. The teachers who were teaching the participants helped us
circulate the QR code for the participants to scan and answer. The whole procedure was in
Chinese, the participants’ first language. Data analyses were conducted through Mplus 8.4.
We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the self-regulation scale.
The validation process was through a series of EFA and CFA. Omnibus fit statistics were
considered to examine whether or not our data fit our proposed model. Focal indices
included the chi-square (χ2) statistic, its degrees of freedom (df), and the p-value. Other
indices included the ratio of chi-square divided by the degrees of freedom, the standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI),
comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). According
to Geiser (2013), a value of χ2/df that ranges from 1 to 3 indicates a good model fit. The GFI
value should be close to .90. RMSEA measures the complexity of a model’s structure, for
which a good model fit is roughly 0.05. The SRMR value should be less than .08, and the CFI
value should be greater than .90. The TLI value should be around .90.
Results from Study 1

Descriptive statistics
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of participants’ perceptions of self-
regulated strategies, including goal setting (GS), strategic planning (SP), elaboration (E),
self-evaluation (SE), and help-seeking (HS). Skewness and kurtosis values indicate the sym-
metry and distribution of the data; Cronbach’s alpha reflects scale reliability. The Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient for each strategy was much higher than the benchmark value of .70, indi-
cating sound reliability (Creswell, 2012).
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

Figure 1 presents the result of CFA among the 5-factor model of SRSMW. The standardized
loading estimates from all the factors to observed variables were higher than the benchmark
value of .50, implying an acceptable effect size (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2008). Parameter
estimates for all items were statistically significant at p < .001. The five factors were signifi-
cantly correlated with each other.
Figure 2 depicts the proposed one-factor second-order model. In this model, SRL func-
tioned as either a single common factor or a higher-order factor. SRL accounted for the
shared variance among the five lower-order strategies. Standardized estimates for all items
exceeded the benchmark value of .50, suggesting an acceptable effect size (Raykov &
Marcoulides, 2008). Parameter estimates for all items were statistically significant at p < .001.
Model fit indices for the two models are displayed in Table 2.
Results in Table 2 revealed an acceptable fit for the 5-factor correlated model (χ2 =
652.269; df = 270; p < .001; χ2/df = 2.418; SRMR = .063; GFI = .877; TLI = .927; CFI = .934;
RMSEA = .059) and for the 1-factor second-order model (χ2 = 639.430; df = 265; p < .001;
χ2/df = 2.413; SRMR = .057; GFI = .889; TLI = .927; CFI = .935; RMSEA = .059). Table 2 presents
the model comparison results. The results indicate that both two models (i.e. the first-order
and the second-order ones) can represent the structure of SRSMW at a satisfactory level.
In the present study, we decided to use ‘target coefficient’ (t) to examine the possible
existence of the second-order model. If serving the first-order model as the target model
(as used in Doll et al., 1994), the t-value will be the ratio of the χ2 of the first-order model
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and internal reliabilities of SRSMW.

Dimensions Items M SD Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s alpha
Goal setting GS1 4.813 1.154 −0.802 1.622 .901
GS2 4.843 1.165 −0.804 1.672
GS3 4.702 1.226 −0.532 0.990
GS4 4.802 1.186 −0.617 1.144
GS5 4.671 1.335 −0.244 0.228
Strategic planning SP1 4.963 1.406 −0.715 0.551 .913
SP2 4.704 1.276 −0.667 0.943
SP3 4.545 1.206 −0.391 0.938
SP4 4.686 1.246 −0.560 1.055
SP5 4.745 1.254 −0.526 0.855
Elaboration E1 4.326 1.204 −0.199 0.527 .869
E2 4.467 1.246 −0.203 0.096
E3 4.477 1.205 −0.270 0.651
E4 4.374 1.143 −0.040 0.737
E5 4.446 1.283 −0.221 0.455
Self-evaluation SE1 4.866 1.282 −0.543 0.596 .886
SE2 4.397 1.102 −0.239 0.990
SE3 4.537 1.116 −0.466 1.216
SE4 4.626 1.347 −0.434 0.154
SE5 4.364 1.238 −0.253 0.416
Help seeking HS1 4.085 1.165 0.130 0.701 .866
HS2 4.266 1.284 −0.053 0.079
HS3 4.517 1.238 −0.428 0.452
HS4 4.227 1.099 0.017 1.037
HS5 4.356 1.148 −0.017 0.618
Figure 1. Five-factor correlated model for self-regulation strategies in multimedia writing.

Note: GS = Goal setting; SP = Strategic planning; E = Elaboration; SE = Self-evaluation; HS = Help seeking.
to that of the second-order model. In the present study, a t-value of .979 affords the
second-order SRSMW construct.
Study 2
This study examined the predictive effects of working memory, SRL strategies, and L2 English
proficiency on multimedia writing performance. In addition, this study investigated how
individual differences in working memory and L2 English proficiency moderated the pre-
dictive effects of SRL strategies on learners’ performance in EFL multimedia writing. Given
(a) that SRL is a dynamic, situational, and multifaceted process related to working memory
(Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994), (b) learners’ lack of self-regulated strategies in applying
Figure 2. One-factor second-order model of self-regulation strategies in multimedia writing.

Note: SR = Self-regulation; GS = Goal setting; SP = Strategic planning; E = Elaboration; SE = Self-evaluation; HS = Help
seeking.
Table 2. Goodness-of-fit indices for competing models.

Goodness-of-fit
indices χ2 df p χ2/df SRMR GFI TLI CFI RMSEA
A 5-factor 652.969 270 .000 2.418 .063 .887 .927 .934 .059
correlated
model
One-factor 639.430 265 .000 2.413 .057 .889 .927 .935 .059
second-order
factor model
multimedia tools into English writing (Qin & Zhang, 2019), and (c) learners’ individual dif-
ferences in working memory (Michel et al., 2019) and English proficiency (Bai et al., 2014;
Sasaki & Hirose, 1996) influence students’ writing performance, we hypothesized a model
on how the three variables, self-regulated writing strategies, working memory, and L2 English
proficiency, influence students’ multimedia writing performance (Figure 3).
It sought to address two research questions:
1. To what extent do working memory, SRL strategies, and L2 English proficiency level
predict multimedia writing performance in an EFL context?
2. Is there a moderation effect of working memory and English proficiency on the rela-
tionship between SRL strategies and multimedia writing performance?
Method
Participants
This study involved 406 university students from a tertiary-level institution in China. Their
ages ranged from 18 to 20 years old (234 men and 172 women). The mean age was 19.18
(SD = 2.21). Participants had been learning English for at least 10 years. This study was con-
ducted during a course named ‘multimedia writing’. Based on the latest examinations for
the students, the participants showed significant differences in terms of GPAs (p>.05).
Measures
After completing the multimedia writing course, all participants completed four measures,
the Self-regulation Scale for Multimedia Writing (SRSMW) in study 1, a working memory test,
an English proficiency test, and a writing test.
Working memory capacity. Participants’ working memory capacity was measured

through the O-Span task (Foster et al., 2015; Turner & Engle, 1989). The O-Span task
in Turner and Engle (1989) study required subjects to complete a simple
mathematical operation while maintaining the final word in a series for later recall.
In Foster et al. (2015) study, the subjects were presented with math equations as a
distractor task (the processing component) and words as to-be-remembered items
(the memory component). In the present study, the O-Span task also required
participants to hold a list of unrelated words in memory while solving a series of
basic math problems. Participants were asked to first judge whether each equation
was true or false; roughly half of the equations were incorrect. Participants were
then presented with a word, then an equation, and then a new word. This equation–
word sequence is called a ‘set size’. Set sizes ranged from three to seven per trial,
Figure 3. Hypothesized models of linking English proficiency, working memory, self-regulation and
writing performance.
and the trial length depended on the number of set sizes. The time available for
solving the processing tasks was individualized. They were required to respond
within 2.5 standard deviations (SDs) of their average response time to each item. If
the participants exceeded the time limit, the program automatically proceeded
and counted that as an error. The next letter then appeared. It takes about 15 min
to complete the O-Span task. Participants were required to recall the preceding
words in order after each trial. The words in each item were in English, which
means that learners’ working memory scores may have been affected by their L2
proficiency. To minimize this possibility, simple English words, like ‘come’, ‘go’,
‘home’, were used. This O-Span task was designed and administered through
E-prime version 2, a software program for behavioral research. Figure 4 presents an
example of the task.
Redick et al. (2012) suggested two scoring systems: absolute scores and partial-credit
scores. Absolute scores were based on the number of correctly recalled items in the proper
order. Partial-credit scores were assigned to elements recalled despite errors involving the
processing component (see Conway et al. (2005), for a comparison of the two scoring
systems). In previous studies (Foster et al., 2015; Turner & Engle, 1989), absolute scores
were adopted. That means scoring was based on two ways of using an all or none method.
Conway et al. (2005) criticized the absolute span score system and deemed it inappropriate
for individual-differences research. Following Conway et al. (2005), we adopted partial
credit scores (i.e. we calculated the sum of all items recalled in the correct serial order,
regardless of whether the entire set was recalled correctly). According to Unsworth et al.
(2005), we set an 85% accuracy criterion for the processing components (mathematic
equations). The descriptive statistics and reliability of the O-Span task are discussed in the
Results section. There were a total of 75 items, and thus 75 points for this task.
Figure 4. Sample O-Span task.

L2 English proficiency. We decided to use the College English Test-4 (CET-4) to

measure participants’ English proficiency. The CET-4 is a standardized test
developed by Chinese EFL professionals and administered to non-English major
university students throughout China. The test has been used in China for more
than two decades, and undergraduate students take it annually. The test measures
listening, speaking, reading, writing, and translation. This test took 125 min. Scores
were graded on a curved scale, with the highest possible score of 710. This test was
administered twice one year through a paper and pencil format in the experimented
university. The validity of the CET-4 was established in previous studies (e.g. Zheng
& Cheng, 2008). Descriptive statistics and reliability of the CET-4 are provided in
the Results section.
Academic writing test. Participants completed their writing task in the multimedia
writing system. The advantage of using the writing system could provide multiple
media information (e.g. texts, images, audio, video) and allow the participants to
provide and receive critique for their writing. This was to ensure that the study fits
with the characteristics of multimedia writing, which are to use multimedia tools
to facilitate student writers’ writing by combining different forms such as text,
audio, image, graphic, and video. This test was administered in a computer
classroom. Students first spent 30 min for the following procedures: first, they read
a passage about ‘pollution and patterns of otter decline’ online. Accompanied
with the texts were the audio clip and the images for an easier understanding.
They then watched a video clip, which was about an interview on environmental
protection. They then discussed their viewpoints online, explained to each other
how the speaker cast doubt on specific points, and provide feedback on possible
solutions to environmental pollution. The final stage was the independent writing
of a news-feature story about the event mentioned in the reading passage and
interview. Participants were required to write an academic essay of approximately
500 words within one hour.
Participants’ written responses were scored based on six criteria: task fulfillment, rel-
evance and completeness of information, grammatical usage, vocabulary usage, con-
nections and coherence, and connection between lecture and reading. Each criterion
could be awarded 0–5 points for a maximum test score of 30 points. A total of 20
English teachers scored all participants’ work. They attended a joint discussion on the
scoring system. Two teachers were responsible for one class. The discrepancies were
resolved through joint discussions between the two teachers. Inter-rater reliability in all
classes ranged from .91-.95. Participants’ information or identity were blind to the raters.
Procedures
The academic registry provided all students’ scores of CET-4 for this research. The study
was conducted in a lab. The participants first completed the validated survey online.
They then spent 15 min on the O-span working memory task, which was conducted
through E-prime software. Finally, they spent one hour in completing a computer-based
writing test. All the tests and surveys were conducted individually. All data were collected
anonymously.
Data analysis
Data analyses were conducted through Mplus 8.4. We employed structural equation mod-
eling (SEM) to test the relationships between self-regulation, working memory, English pro-
ficiency, and writing scores. Methods for addressing model fit included the parsimony index,
absolute index, and relative index. Following SEM, we adopted hierarchical moderator
regression analysis. Two interaction terms were included in the equation. We standardized
all variables to reduce the potential effects of multicollinearity (Cohen et al., 2003). The
technique of least squares was used with the main effects in step 1 and the interaction and
moderators in step 2.
Results from Study 2

Descriptive statistics
The mean score and standard deviations in Table 3 capture individual differences in the four
measures. Skewness and kurtosis values reflected reasonable symmetry and distribution of
the data. Cronbach’s alpha indicated that all three measures possessed sound reliability.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) results

Before conducting SEM, we completed a correlation analysis among all variables (Table 4).
As shown in Table 4, inter-correlation coefficients ranged from r = .311 between self-
regulation and English proficiency to r = .459 between self-regulation and writing perfor-
mance. The correlations between self-regulation and WORKING MEMORY (r = .365), English
proficiency and WORKING MEMORY (r = .412), WORKING MEMORY and writing performance
(r = .372), and English proficiency and writing performance (r = .456) were all significant at
the 0.01 level. SEM results appear in Figure 5. The data fit the proposed structural equation
model well (CMIN = 32.499, df = 17, p = .07, CMIN/df = 1.286, RMR = .216, GFI = .980, NFI = .972,
RFI = .954, TLI = .977, CFI = .986, RMSEA = .047).
Path coefficients for all independent variables on the dependent variables were also
significant. Self-regulation had a significant positive effect on writing performance, and the
standardized coefficient was 0.393 (p < .001). The standardized coefficient value of working
memory was 0.239 (p < .001), indicating that this variable had a significant predictive effect
Table 3. Descriptive statistics on the four measures.

Variables M SD Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s alpha
Working memory 45.386 11.489 −.413 −.679 .862
English proficiency 455.086 12.444 −.789 −1.005 .813
Writing performance 20.625 6.852 .071 −1.222 .879
SRSMW 4.564 1.256 −.541 1.012 .889
Table 4. Correlation results among the variables.

Working memory English proficiency Self regulation Writing performance
Working memory 1
English proficiency .412** 1
Self regulation .365** .311** 1
Writing performance .372** .456** .459** 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two -tailed).
Figure 5. SEM results on the explored variables.
on WP. The regression coefficient for EPL was 0.238 (p < .001), meaning that this variable had
a significant positive effect on WP.
The next step was to understand the moderation effects through hierarchical regression.
Before conducting the moderation effect analysis, all independent variables were standard-
ized by converting the standard scores into z scores. Moderation coefficients are shown in
Table 5.
Overall, in step 1, the main effects of English proficiency (p<.001), working memory
(p < .05), and self-regulation (p < .001) were significant for writing performance (R2 = 0.333,
F = 66.825, p < .001). In step 2, results showed the significant effects of English proficiency
(p < .001) and working memory (p < .05) on writing performance. The interactions between
English proficiency and self-regulation were significant (coefficient = −0.122, p < .05), such
that English proficiency played a moderating role in the relationship between self-regulation
and writing. When English proficiency was low, self-regulation had a greater impact on
writing performance; conversely, when English proficiency was high, self-regulation had a
smaller effect on writing performance. In other words, as students’ English proficiency
improved, the influence of self-regulation on their writing performance declined. However,
concerning the interaction between working memory and self-regulation, the present study
did not identify a statistically significant estimate, indicating that the fluctuation of working
memory may not affect how self-regulation could relate to students’ writing outcomes.
General discussions
In Study 1, we validated a self-report questionnaire, the SRSMW, to understand different charac-
teristics of SRL strategies in an EFL multimedia writing context. We validated two models in terms
of SRSMW for this purpose. In Study 2, we adopted SEM to explore the relationship among
self-regulated strategies, working memory, and overall L2 proficiency, as well as their effects on
multimedia writing performance. We finally adopted hierarchical moderator regression analysis
Table 5. Moderation effects of self regulation.

b SE β t p
Step 1 main effects
English Proficiency .182 .027 .303 6.664 .000
Working Memory .120 .043 .132 2.830 .005
Self Regulation 3.191 .449 .317 7.111 .000
R2 .333
F 66.825***
Step 2 interactions
English Proficiency .184 .027 .307 6.708 .000
Working Memory .115 .042 .126 2.724 .007
Self Regulation 2.470 .523 .245 4.723 .000
English proficiency*Self −.726 .297 −.122 −2.447 .015
regulation
Working memory*Self −.105 .210 −.021 −.500 .618
regulation
R2 .344
F 42.003***
to understand the moderation effects of working memory and English proficiency on self-
regulation and writing performance. The following sections explain our findings.
Validation of self-regulated writing strategies

The findings supported the two proposed models. EFL learners’ self-regulation capacity was
orchestrated through a repertoire of general and specific strategies they adopted to handle
writing tasks in a multimedia environment. The importance of goal setting in writing reflects
Zimmerman’s (2000) proposal that self-regulation requires learners’ systematic effort to direct
thoughts, feelings, and actions toward the realization of one’s goals. In the present study, as
learners engaged in writing tasks in a multimedia environment, they could compare their
current performance with self-established goals. Positive self-evaluations of progress may
strengthen self-efficacy (Teng & Wang, 2022) and sustain motivation (Ryan, 2012).
Our findings suggest that the common factor of self-regulated writing strategies, self-
regulation, was found to account for the five subcategories. Findings showed that Chinese
EFL learners in a multimedia environment tended to plan ahead and organize their thoughts
and material to ensure the production of an effective piece of writing. As pointed out by
Zhang and Qin (2018), learners who are well-prepared or plan their multimedia writing well
often possess strong metacognitive awareness about writing and thus set writing-related
goals. Our results also echoed findings from other empirical studies evaluating learners’
planning strategies in EFL writing contexts (Sasaki et al., 2018; Teng, 2019a). The importance
of elaboration strategies in multimedia writing supports Broadbent’s (2017) work, in which
elaboration strategies, as well as other metacognitive and effort regulation strategies, were
identified as significant predictors of blended learners’ academic grades. Recent research
has addressed the role of self-reflection as a core motivation in enhancing one’s writing
performance (Teng, 2020). The current findings substantiate the importance of such an
ability for writing development in a multimedia environment (Qin & Zhang, 2019). Learners
must self-reflect on their learning; this ability is a crucial component of metacognition when
learning to write (Teng, 2019b). In line with Broadbent (2017), online learners reported varied
use of SRL strategies, including peer learning and help-seeking. Our findings imply that
help-seeking, an ability related to obtaining assistance from instructors and peers with the
aim of overcoming academic challenges in multimedia writing, was a significant predictor
of writing achievement.
Self-regulated strategies, working memory, English proficiency, and writing

performance
Consistent with previous studies (Qin & Zhang, 2019; Teng et al., 2022; Teng & Zhang, 2016),
self-regulated writing strategies significantly predicted EFL learners’ writing performance.
Given the growing use of multimedia tools in EFL classrooms in China, the findings highlight
the importance of evaluation strategies. We argue that evaluation strategies should be
assigned great importance in writing courses. We can also speculate that as learners become
more aware of how to evaluate the learning-to-write process, they will likely adopt these
reflective processes to enhance their writing quality and, in turn, become more aware of
being independent student writers. Our findings further indicate that elaboration strategies
(i.e. an ability to fuse new and existing information with the aim of remembering new mate-
rial), were significantly associated with multimedia writing achievement. We therefore argue
that help-seeking, or peer learning, can reflect how student writers use social–behavioral
factors to promote their self-regulatory capabilities. These findings contradict those of Teng
and Zhang (2016), who found that peer learning did not generate a predictive effect on EFL
learners’ writing performance. One explanation may be that, compared to traditional class-
room writing, learners in multimedia writing environments need more help to control, man-
age, and plan their actions when learning to write. Given the cognitive demands of a
multimedia learning environment, learners need strategic planning to gain strong autonomy
when accessing online learning materials.
Working memory also positively predicts writing performance. The results support Adams
and Guillot (2008) study measuring French–English bilinguals’ working memory and writing.
In particular, the authors’ findings indicated that visual working memory in English predicted
text composition. We could also argue that EFL learners’ writing reflects specific memory
domains and skill sets. In Michel et al. (2019) study, working memory functioning had a
limited effect on L2 writing performance, except for in an editing task and integrated listen–
write task in Grade 7. While our findings unveil a positive and significant correlation between
working memory and writing performance, their study revealed a lack of a significant cor-
relation between working memory and performance on most writing tasks. This pattern
may have emerged because their study focused on L2 young learners, whose English pro-
ficiency might be lower than that of the participants in our study. As argued by Olive (2012),
working memory capacity is ‘the place where writing processes are activated and coordi-
nated and where the writers’ representation of the text is constructed and updated’ (p. 485).
We can, therefore, contend that working memory represents a cognitive space where cog-
nitive operations of the writing process take place. As reflected in Kellogg’s (1996) compo-
nential model of working memory in writing, writing processes place demands on learners’
central executive, which correlates with learners’ ability to manage their cognitive effort.
As documented by Teng and Huang (2019), in addition to learners’ SRL strategies, students’
English proficiency – and even their English learning experience – accounted for much
variance in writing performance. In an early study (Sasaki & Hirose, 1996), EFL students’ scores
on English proficiency, metaknowledge, and Japanese composition tasks collectively
explained 54.5% of the variance in students’ English writing scores. Therefore, in addition to
the role of learners’ metacognitive knowledge in fostering self-regulated capacity (Zhang &
Zhang, 2019), learners’ L2 proficiency appears to influence their L2 writing ability (Ma & Teng,
2021). As explained by Bai et al. (2014), students with better English proficiency often
reported more advanced strategy use, including planning, text generating, revising, and
monitoring and evaluating, than students in the lower-proficiency group. Considering the
positive effects of metacognitive strategy training in enhancing EFL writing (Teng, 2016),
one can assume that learners’ English proficiency is a significant predictor of writing perfor-
mance. The importance of English proficiency in EFL multimedia writing was also highlighted
by Qin and Zhang (2019). By comparing students with lower and higher English proficiency,
Qin and Zhang (2019) argued that, although multimedia sources were useful for fostering
student learning, learners with different levels of language proficiency demonstrated distinct
writing outcomes.
Finally, the interesting findings were the moderation effects. The findings supported the
interaction effects between proficiency and self-regulation. For example, English proficiency
moderated the relationship between self-regulation and writing. When English proficiency
was low, self-regulation had a greater impact on writing performance. In contrast, when
English proficiency was high, self-regulation had a smaller effect on writing performance.
As supported by Sasaki and Hirose (1996), learners’ L2 proficiency explained 52% of the L2
writing ability variance. Our findings further highlight the importance of fostering self-
regulated writing strategies for those learners of lower English proficiency level, as docu-
mented by Teng and Huang (2019).
In terms of the moderating effects of Working memory and Self-regulation on writing
performance, the results did not show the moderation effects. Although Teng (2020) argued
that learners with self-established goals may have better motivation, and such motivation
may lead to higher goal commitment when writing. The results of the current study demon-
strate that working memory does not affect self-regulation capacity. The variances of working
memory may not determine their cognitive effort for different tasks. However, as stated by
Linck et al. (2014), the direct relationship between working memory and L2 learning out-
comes remains unclear. The findings in the context of Chinese EFL writing should be further
explored to identify how working memory impacts L2 writing performance in task conditions.
Limitations and implications

Some limitations still exist. First, the evaluation of self-regulation was based on learners’
self-reports, and multiple methods (e.g. interviews) could be used to explore more thor-
oughly learners’ perceptions of SRL strategies in the future. Second, working memory is a
dynamic and complex construct for which verbal, visual, and spatial working memory
demands may play unique roles in writing performance (Olive, 2012). However, we focused
solely on the O-Span task, which may not fully demonstrate learners’ working memory capac-
ity. Third, ‘subject area’ should be analyzed as a random factor in statistical analyses. Such a
limitation can be addressed in future studies. In addition, demographic variables, and cog-
nitive variables (such as language), which would seem important for contextualizing effects,
were not included in the analyses. Finally, in addition to the five SRL strategies we explored,
more strategies should be examined in subsequent studies.
Despite these limitations, this study provides several valuable implications. First, we
hypothesized and validated models for evaluating SRL strategies in a multimedia writing
environment. Our findings thus provide insight into SRL strategies and how different strat-
egies can predict writing performance in an EFL multimedia environment. These results
could inform instruction of relevant writing strategies for EFL learners.
Second, the developed tool for self-regulated writing strategies can be used to evaluate
learners’ awareness of writing strategies. The SRSMW may also contextualize the role of stu-
dents’ metacognitive awareness of writing strategies (e.g. planning, peer learning, and eval-
uation) to expedite students’ enhancement of EFL writing in university settings, which are
generally equipped with multimedia technology to provide computer-assisted language
learning. Finally, this study offers a starting point to develop theoretical frameworks exploring
how working memory and English proficiency interact and moderate students’ awareness of
self-regulated writing strategies and, by extension, their multimedia writing performance.
Disclosure statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
ORCID
Mark Feng Teng http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5134-8504
Lawrence Jun Zhang http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1025-1746
References
Adams, A. M., & Guillot, K. (2008). Working memory and writing in bilingual students. ITL – International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 13–28. https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034417
Azevedo, R. (2010). Computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning.
Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 193–197. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_1
Baddeley, A. D. (1998). Working memory. Comptes rendus de l'Academie des sciences. Serie III, Sciences
de la vie, 321(2-3), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0764-4469(97)89817-4
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning
and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic Press.
Bai, R., Hu, G., & Gu, P. Y. (2014). The relationship between use of writing strategies and English profi-
ciency in Singapore primary schools. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(3), 355–365. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0110-0
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice–Hall.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Erlbaum.
Boekaerts, M. (1995). Self-regulated learning: Bridging the gap between metacognitive and metamotiva-
tion theories. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3004_4
Broadbent, J. (2017). Comparing online and blended learner’s self-regulated learning strategies and
academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iheduc.2017.01.004
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for
the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Erlbaum.
Conway, A., Kane, M., Bunting, M., Hambrick, Z., Wilhelm, D., & Engle, R. (2005). Working memory span
tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qual-
itative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing
satisfaction instrument. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 453–461. https://doi.org/10.2307/249524
Doolittle, P., & Mariano, G. (2008). Working memory capacity and mobile multimedia learning envi-
ronments: Individual differences in learning while mobile. Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia, 7(4), 511–530.
Dutke, S., & Rinck, M. (2006). Multimedia learning: Working memory and the learning of word and
picture diagrams. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.
2006.10.002
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 91–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014698
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In
L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Erlbaum.
Foster, J. L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Shortened com-
plex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 43(2), 226–
236. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0461-7
Geiser, C. (2013). Data analysis with Mplus. Guilford.
Graham, S. (2018). A revised writer(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist,
53(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406
Gyselinck, V., Jamet, E., & Dubois, V. (2008). The role of working memory components in multimedia
comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1411
Hafner, C. A., & Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative
digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning & Technology,
15(3), 68–86.
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The sci-
ence of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Erlbaum.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Routledge.
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language
comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 861–883.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0565-2
Liu, M., Zhang, L. J., & Biebricher, C. (2023). Investigating students’ cognitive processes in generative
AI-assisted digital multimodal composing and traditional writing. Computers & Education, 211,
104977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104977
Ma, J., & Teng, F. (2021). Metacognitive knowledge development of students with differing levels of
writing proficiency in a process-oriented course: An action research study. In B. L. Reynolds & F.
Teng (Eds.). Innovative approaches in teaching writing to Chinese speakers (pp. 92–117). DeGruyter.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist,
32(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3201_1
Michel, M., Kormos, J., Brunfaut, T., & Ratajczak, M. (2019). The role of working memory in young sec-
ond language learners’ written performances. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 31–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.002
Olive, T. (2012). Working memory in writing. In V. Berninger (Ed.). Past, present, and future contributions
of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 485–503). Psychology Press.
Peeters, W., & Mynard, J. (2023). Supporting self-regulated language learning skills online: Awareness
raising approaches for computer-supported collaboration. Language Awareness, 32(1), 132–152.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.2018447
Pennington, M. C., & So, S. (1993). Comparing writing process and product across two languages: A
study of 6 Singaporean university student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2(1), 41–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(93)90005-N
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 Press.
Qin, L. M., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). English as a foreign language writers’ metacognitive strategy knowl-
edge of writing and their working performance in multimedia environments. Journal of Writing
Research, 12(2), 393–413.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing.
TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229–258. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586828
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. Routledge.
Redick, T. S., Broadway, J. M., Meier, M. E., Kuriakose, P. S., Unsworth, N., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W.
(2012). Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(3), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000123
Repovs, G., & Baddeley, A. D. (2006). The multi-component model of working memory: Explorations in
experimental cognitive psychology. Neuroscience, 139(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurosci-
ence.2005.12.061
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Lee, M.-J. (2017). Investigating IELTS Academic writing Task 2–relationships be-
tween cognitive writing processes, text quality, and working memory. British Council, Cambridge
English Language Assessment and IDP.
Ryan, R. M. (2012). The Oxford handbook of human motivation. Oxford University Press.
Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing. Language
Learning, 46(1), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb00643.x
Sasaki, M., Mizumoto, A., & Murakami, A. (2018). Developmental trajectories in L2 writing strategy use:
A self-regulation perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 292–309. https://doi.org/
10.1111/modl.12469
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., & Genuchten, E. (2011). The role of working memory in multimedia instruc-
tion: Is working memory working during learning from text and pictures? Educational Psychology
Review, 23(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9168-5
Sweeny, S. M. (2010). Writing for the instant messaging and text messaging generation: Using new
literacies to support writing instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(2), 121–130.
https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.54.2.4
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon.
Teng, F. (2016). Immediate and delayed effects of embedded metacognitive instruction on Chinese
EFL students’ English writing and regulation of cognition. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 289–
302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.06.005
Teng, F. (2019a). The role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in mediating university EFL
learners’ writing performance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(5), 436–450.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1615493
Teng, F. (2019b). A comparison of text structure and self-regulated strategy instruction for elementary
school students’ writing. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 18(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/
10.1108/ETPC-07-2018-0070
Teng, F. (2020). Young learners’ reading and writing performance: Exploring collaborative modeling of
text structure as an additional component of self-regulated strategy development. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 65, 100870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100870
Teng, F. (2021). Interactive-whiteboard-technology-supported collaborative writing: Writing achieve-
ment, metacognitive activities, and co-regulation patterns. System, 97, 102426. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.system.2020.102426
Teng, F., & Huang, J. (2019). Predictive effects of writing strategies for self-regulated learning on sec-
ondary school learners’ EFL writing proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 232–247. https://doi.org/
10.1002/tesq.462
Teng, F., Qin, C., & Wang, C. (2022). Validation of metacognitive academic writing strategies and the
predictive effects on academic writing performance in a foreign language context. Metacognition
and Learning, 17(1), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09278-4
Teng, F., & Wang, C. (2022). Assessing academic writing self-efficacy belief and writing performance in
a foreign language context. Foreign Language Annals, 56(1), 144–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/
flan.12638
Teng, F., Wang, C., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Assessing self-regulatory writing strategies and their predic-
tive effects on young EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessing Writing, 51, 100573. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100573
Teng, F., & Yue, M. (2023). Metacognitive writing strategies, critical thinking skills, and academic writ-
ing performance: A structural equation modeling approach. Metacognition and Learning, 18(1),
237–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09328-5
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016). 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
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
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory
and Language, 28(2), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R., Schrock, J., & Engle, R. (2005). An automated version of the operation span
task. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 498–505. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192720
Wen, Z., Adriana, B., Mailce, B. M., & Teng, F. (2023). Cognitive individual differences in second language
acquisition: Theory, assessment & pedagogy. Mouton de Gruyter.
Wolsey, T. D., & Grisham, D. L. (2012). Transforming writing instruction in the digital age. The Guilford
Press.
Wong, M., & Storey, P. (2006). Knowing and doing in the ESL writing class. Language Awareness, 15(4),
283–300. https://doi.org/10.2167/la365/0
Zhang, D., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). Metacognition and self-regulated learning in second/foreign lan-
guage teaching. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp. 883–898).
Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2_47
Zhang, L. J., & Qin, L. (2018). Validating a questionnaire on EFL Writers’ metacognitive awareness of
writing strategies in multimedia environments. In Å. Haukås, C. Bjørke, & M. Dypedahl (Eds.),
Metacognition in language learning and teaching (pp. 157–178). Routledge.
Zheng, Y., & Cheng, L. (2008). College English Test (CET) in China. Language Testing, 25(3), 408–417.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208092433
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts,
P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives.
Routledge.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment.
American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845–862. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031004845
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspec-
tive. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0919
Appendix 1. A brief summary of students’ interview questions
1. Do you think self-regulation is important in multimedia writing? Why?

2. Do you think you can take control over your writing? Why? How about multimedia writing?
What challenges have you encountered?
3. Do you have any challenges in planning and evaluating multimedia writing?
4. Do you have any challenges in regulating your learning-to-write process, particularly in using
multimedia technology?
5. Do you use any strategies for facilitating self-regulation in multimedia writing? If yes, what
kind of strategies? If not, why?
6. Do you set goals for out-of-class writing practice? Why?
7. What kind of resources do you use for regulating your writing?
8. How do you think of the multimedia writing course?
9. What strengths and weakness do you think you have for multimedia writing?
Appendix 2. Self-regulation Scale for Multimedia Writing (SRSMW)
Please indicate the extent to which the following statements describe your behavior in writing.
Indicate how you typically behave rather than how you think you should behave. There are no correct
or incorrect responses to these questions.
Multiple-choice options for each item: Strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), somewhat disagree (3),
neither agree nor disagree (4), somewhat agree (5), agree (6), and strongly agree (7).
The self-regulation scale for multimedia writing Options

Goal Setting (GS)
1. I set goals for monitoring my progress and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
performance in multimedia writing.
2. I set short-term (daily or weekly) goals as well as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
long-term goals for multimedia writing.
3. I set goals to use online discussion boards, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
webpages, and blogs to share my written works
and receive feedback.
4. I set goals for learning technological innovations/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
tools carefully and critically.
5. I set goals to learn the essential elements of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
multimedia writing course to improve my
writing.
Strategic Planning (SP)
6. I ask myself questions about what I can learn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
from the multimedia writing course.
7. I compare different multimedia platforms for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
learning to write.
8. I adapt strategies that have worked in the past 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
for multimedia writing.
9. I organize my study time for my writing through 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
using multimedia technology.
10. I compare different online resources to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
synthesize my arguments for writing.
Elaboration (E)
11. I try to synthesize the best argument through 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
comparing different sources of online
information.
12. I pull together information from different 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
sources, such as readings, online resources, and
my prior knowledge of the subject for my
writing.
The self-regulation scale for multimedia writing Options

13. I try to add more details to understand the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
different use of online tools for my writing.
14. I try to relate online material to things I have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
learned in other subjects.
15. I use various multimedia tools to give further 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
detail for explaining a social phenomenon.
Self-Evaluation (SE)
16. I evaluate how well I have learned for writing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
through using multimedia tools.
17. I reflect on the advantages and disadvantages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
of multimedia tools after I finish a writing task.
18. I evaluate what I have learned from this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
multimedia writing course.
19. I take advantage of multimedia tools to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
evaluate my language use.
20. I check if what I learned from this multimedia 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
writing course is appropriate for various writing
tasks.
Help-Seeking (HS)
21. Multimedia tools (e.g. Pigaiwang) are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
convenient for me to seek help from teachers
and peers for writing.
22. I try to seek feedback from peers and teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
through multimedia tools.
23. I ask peers and teachers for information on how 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
to maximize my writing in multimedia
environments.
24. If I have trouble in using multimedia tools for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
writing, I ask for help from teachers.
25. I ask for peer and teacher feedback in how to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
use multimedia tools to fit with genre
requirement.

Assessing Self-Regulated Writing Strategies Working Memory L2 Proficiency Level and Multimedia Writing Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Self-Regulated Writing Strategies Working Memory L2 Proficiency Level and Multimedia Writing Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Awareness

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

Assessing self-regulated writing strategies,

Mark Feng Teng & Lawrence Jun Zhang

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2023.2300269

Published online: 12 Jan 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 288

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Assessing self-regulated writing strategies, working

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Self-regulated strategies and writing

learning environments thus appeared contingent on student writers’ knowledge of meta-

Working memory and writing

English proficiency level and writing

Purposes of this research

Multimedia writing course

Self-Regulation Scale for Multimedia Writing

Consultation of relevant theories and related literature. Consultation of relevant

Cross-checking with interviews. Semi-structured interviews with students were

Procedures and analyses

Results from Study 1

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and internal reliabilities of SRSMW.

Figure 1. Five-factor correlated model for self-regulation strategies in multimedia writing.

Figure 2. One-factor second-order model of self-regulation strategies in multimedia writing.

Table 2. Goodness-of-fit indices for competing models.

It sought to address two research questions:

Working memory capacity. Participants’ working memory capacity was measured

Figure 4. Sample O-Span task.

L2 English proficiency. We decided to use the College English Test-4 (CET-4) to

Results from Study 2

Structural equation modeling (SEM) results

Table 3. Descriptive statistics on the four measures.

Table 4. Correlation results among the variables.

Figure 5. SEM results on the explored variables.

Table 5. Moderation effects of self regulation.

Validation of self-regulated writing strategies

Self-regulated strategies, working memory, English proficiency, and writing

Limitations and implications

Appendix 1. A brief summary of students’ interview questions

1. Do you think self-regulation is important in multimedia writing? Why?

Appendix 2. Self-regulation Scale for Multimedia Writing (SRSMW)

The self-regulation scale for multimedia writing Options

The self-regulation scale for multimedia writing Options

You might also like