859921

research-article2019
LTR0010.1177/1362168819859921Language Teaching ResearchBai and Guo

LANGUAGE
TEACHING
Article RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research

Motivation and self-regulated

1­–22
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
strategy use: Relationships sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1362168819859921
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819859921
to primary school students’ journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr

English writing in Hong Kong

Barry Bai
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Wenjuan Guo
East China Normal University, China

Abstract
This study was to examine the individual differences in primary school students’ motivation
(i.e. growth mindset, self-efficacy, and interest), self-regulated learning strategy use in English
writing and the relationships between motivation, strategy use and English writing competence.
Participants were 523 4th grade primary school students in Hong Kong. Although the findings
showed a general pattern that the high achievers reported higher levels of motivation (i.e.
growth mindset, self-efficacy, and interest) and self-regulated learning (SRL) strategy use than
the average achievers, who in turn outperformed the low achievers, all the students showed
quite a low level of interest in English writing. Interestingly, motivation impacted SRL strategy
use very differently for students of different writing competence groups on the whole. Three-
group Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) suggested that growth mindset had the strongest
and most significant correlations with all students’ use of SRL strategies. However, interest and
self-efficacy had different relationship patterns with SRL strategy use among the high, average and
low achievers. Interest had no significant relations with the high achievers’ SRL strategy use, while
self-efficacy had no significant relations with the low achievers’ SRL strategy use. Implications for
English teachers to improve differentiated instruction are discussed.

Keywords
English writing, individual differences, motivation, primary school students, self-regulated
learning strategies

Corresponding author:
Wenjuan Guo, Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, No.3663, North Zhongshan Road, Shanghai
200062, China.
Email: minnieguo777@163.com
2 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

I Introduction
Research has well documented the importance of self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies
in improving students’ academic achievements. Students who use more SRL strategies are
more likely to gain better academic achievements (Bai, Hu, & Gu, 2014; Cohen & Pinilla-
Herrera, 2009; Oxford, 2017; Schünemann, Spörer, & Brunstein, 2013; Yang & Plakans,
2012). According to the social cognitive theory, personal beliefs and thoughts can influ-
ence one’s behaviors (Bandura, 2001). Motivational factors, e.g. intrinsic motivation and
self-efficacy, have the strongest influences on students’ SRL strategy use (Berger &
Karabenick, 2011; Martínez, Pérez, & Navarrete, 2015; Virtanen & Nevgi, 2010). In addi-
tion, growth mindset, i.e. belief that one’s intelligence can change, has also been increas-
ingly recognized as another important motivational factor to increase students’ use of SRL
strategies (Dweck, 2014; Romero et al., 2014; Zakrajsek, 2017).
High achievers tended to be much more motivated and use more SRL strategies dur-
ing their learning process than low achievers (Abu-Hamour & Al-Hmouz, 2013; Bannert,
Reimann, & Sonnenberg, 2014; DiFrancesca, Nietfeld, & Cao, 2016; Esparza, Shumow,
& Schmidt, 2014). Notwithstanding the large body of research on students’ motivation
and SRL strategy use in the field of general English learning, little is known about the
individual differences in students’ interest, self-efficacy and growth mindset in the con-
text of English writing. In the field of general English learning, only a few studies have
investigated the relationships between self-efficacy and SRL strategy use (e.g. Kim,
Wang, Ahn, & Bong, 2015). There is a need to understand the impacts of these motiva-
tional factors on SRL strategy use in English writing in order for researchers and teachers
to effectively design and conduct classroom instructions.
More importantly, according to the social cognitive theory, students’ SRL is sensitive to
specific contexts and may vary as a function of the individual differences (Zimmerman,
2002). Students’ SRL strategy use is usually assumed by many researchers as well as teach-
ers to be a relatively general process that works in a similar manner for all students. Bai et al.
(2014) found that primary students of different language proficiency levels used their writ-
ing strategies significantly differently. For example, the high proficiency students used their
writing strategies more frequently than the intermediate and low proficiency students.
However, the study did not address what factors led to the individual differences. As a result,
we know very little about how the above-mentioned motivational factors may impact SRL
strategy use for students of different language learning achievement levels.
Both motivation and SRL strategy use play very important roles in students’ learning
of English writing. To our best knowledge, there has been little research that examined
primary school students’ motivation with regard to English writing in an English as a
second language (L2) context. In addition, research into the interplays between motiva-
tion and SRL strategy use in English writing also needs more attention. For example, one
area that needs further exploration is how motivation may trigger students’ SRL strategy
use so that they can write better English compositions.
To fill these research gaps, the present study aimed to investigate the levels of stu-
dents’ motivation and SRL strategy use, and whether the relationships between students’
motivation and use of SRL strategies in English writing vary among high, average and
low achievers in Hong Kong. Practically, understanding the individual differences in
Bai and Guo 3

students’ motivation and SRL strategy use, as well as the relationships between the two
constructs, will help English teachers to better implement differentiated instruction and
improve students’ use of SRL strategies. In addition, the findings should draw important
stakeholders’ attention to motivating primary school students to improve their English
writing through early interventions. Theoretically, this study will also show some intri-
cate relationships between motivation and SRL strategy use by providing useful insights
into the individual differences in the context of English writing research.

II Literature review
1 The role of motivation in learning and learning to write in
English as an L2
Motivation is defined as the sum of the need for achievement, the probability of success, the
incentive values of task fulfilment, and the incentives to avoid failure (Dörnyei & Ushioda,
2013). Interest and self-efficacy are very important motivational factors. Interest refers to
the degree to which learners participate in a task for curiosity, challenge, or mastery (Dörnyei
& Ushioda, 2013). Self-efficacy is defined as individuals’ personal evaluations of whether
they are capable of accomplishing a particular task (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008).
Students who have great interest or believe that they will be successful are more likely to
achieve success, and vice versa (Hong, Sas, & Sas, 2006). High achievers tended to show
greater levels of interest (Abu-Hamour & Al-Hmouz, 2013) and self-efficacy (Abu-Hamour
& Al-Hmouz, 2013; DiFrancesca et al., 2016) in learning than low achievers.
Growth mindset refers to the belief that one’s intelligence is malleable and can grow with
efforts and is also considered an effective motivational tool for students (Dweck, 2014; North
Wolfe, 2017). Growth mindset and self-efficacy are different but related concepts, with the
former focusing more on general intelligence and the latter being more task-specific
(Alexander & Schnick, 2008; Dweck, 2014). For example, students may believe that their
intelligence can grow and they might succeed at anything if they study hard. A comparative
example of self-efficacy is that students may believe that they are capable of writing, instead
of reading or anything else. Students with a growth mindset tend to embrace challenges,
adopt a wide range of strategies, and work harder in order to improve performance (Dweck,
2014; Esparza et al., 2014). What’s more, when faced with adversity, those who hold a growth
mindset and believe that their intelligence can grow with efforts or practice, are more likely
to persist and academically thrive (North Wolfe, 2017). By contrast, students who have a
fixed mindset and believe that their intelligence is a fixed trait and cannot grow are more
inclined to avoid challenges, exert less effort and preserve their self-image (Dweck, 2012;
Zander et al., 2018). As such, high achievers tend to hold a growth mindset, while low achiev-
ers tend to hold a fixed growth mindset. However, previous research mainly focused on the
impact of interest and/or self-efficacy, but seems to have paid less attention to the effect of
growth mindset, which may function as an essential motivator for lifelong learning.
Empirical research has found that many students held a fixed mindset and did not
believe the value of efforts for improving their intelligence or achieving success (Dweck,
2014). Although growth mindset is generally treated as an important contributor to gen-
eral learning achievements, no research has been undertaken to measure its impact on
4 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

English learning in particular. Especially, in the context of primary school students’

English writing, little is known on how growth mindset may impact English writing
competence in an L2 context. Equally problematic is many teachers’ oversight into the
effect of growth mindset on students’ learning achievements in the classroom (Guo,
2017). Therefore, it is important to understand how growth mindset as well as interest
and self-efficacy may affect students’ English writing. This study can provide useful
insights for English teachers to shape their students’ motivation as a way to improve their
English writing competence at an early age.
On the other hand, motivation to write in English as an L2 warrants more attention (Lee,
Yu, & Liu, 2018). Especially, Boo, Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) noted an absence of motivation
research on primary school students. Within the limited literature on L2 learners’ motivation
for English writing, Lee et al. (2018) found that Hong Kong secondary school students gen-
erally showed a lack of motivation to write in English. In Zhang and Guo’s (2012) study
with Chinese university students, motivation, self-efficacy and English writing competence
were found to be positively correlated. In Lee et al.’s (2018) study, the construct of motiva-
tion included multiple dimensions such as task importance, interest, ideal L2 self, and ought-
to L2 self. The present study included only three dimensions of motivation, i.e. interest,
self-efficacy and growth mindset as primary school students may not have developed their
sense of task importance and L2 self. In addition, the present study represents an attempt to
understand the interplays between interest, self-efficacy and growth mindset because these
three dimensions are both similar and different. It is necessary to differentiate them and their
impacts on self-regulation in English writing. In addition, there is also a need to understand
how students’ motivation may impact their writing competence (Lee et al., 2018).

2 Self-regulated learning (SRL) strategy use

SRL is defined as an active and constructive process that learners take control of them-
selves cognitively, behaviorally and emotionally in order to attain certain learning goals
(Zimmerman, 2002). SRL learners can be portrayed as those who proactively use appro-
priate cognitive, metacognitive, and resource management strategies in learning in order
to deal with challenging tasks (Pintrich, Pintrich, & de Groot, 1990; Schunk &
Zimmerman, 2010). Self-regulation can also be considered a motivational factor.
However, SRL strategy use focuses more on the proactive use of a variety of learning
strategies (Pintrich et al., 1990), while self-regulation in motivation emphasizes the con-
trol of one’s feelings or emotions (Zimmerman, 2002). Students of different academic
achievement levels demonstrated significantly different levels of SRL strategy use. High
achievers were more likely to use more cognitive strategies, such as rehearsal and organ-
izing (Bannert et al., 2014; Dermitzaki, Andreou, & Paraskeva, 2008; DiFrancesca et al.,
2016; Nandagopal & Ericsson, 2012), more metacognitive strategies, such as goal set-
ting and goal monitoring (Bannert et al., 2014; Dermitzaki et al., 2008; DiFrancesca
et al., 2016; Hong et al., 2006), and more resource management strategies, such as time
management, cooperation and help-seeking in learning than both average and low
achievers (Hong et al., 2006; Nandagopal & Ericsson, 2012).
In the context of English writing, Flower and Hayes (1981) proposed three general
stages in the writing process, i.e. before writing, while writing and after writing. SRL
Bai and Guo 5

learners tend to actively use various SRL strategies to plan, generate and refine their
writing at the different writing stages. Before writing, learners use planning to set goals,
generate and organize their writing ideas (Chien, 2012). While writing, learners translate
their ideas into visible words, sentences, and paragraphs, and monitor what has been
planned or written for refinement (Chien, 2012; de Larios, Manchón, Murphy, & Marín,
2008). After writing, they work on feedback from teachers, peers or parents, and revise
the lexical and grammatical problems that emerge in their writing (de Larios et al., 2008).
The present study will focus on three major types of SRL strategies in English writing,
i.e. planning, self-monitoring, and acting on feedback given their relative importance in
the entire writing process, and investigate whether the use of these types of SRL strate-
gies varies among students of different writing competence levels.

3 Relationships between motivation and SRL strategy use

According to Bandura’s (2001) social cognitive theory, social factors such as personal
thoughts and beliefs can influence ones’ behaviors. Motivation can be seen as one of
the most important social factors that can affect one’s learning behaviors (Bandura,
2001). Students with greater interest in learning demonstrates higher levels of enjoy-
ment, curiosity and positive attitudes towards effective teaching methods of writing,
and are more likely to use more cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies in
learning (Abu-Hamour & Al-Hmouz, 2013; Hong et al., 2006). Self-efficacy was also
found to be positively related to various types of strategy use. For example, ninth grade
students’ self-efficacy was found to positively predict their use of cognitive and meta-
cognitive strategies in a long term (Berger & Karabenick, 2011). Students with a higher
level of self-efficacy beliefs tended to believe that the course material was useful,
important and interesting and they appeared to pay more efforts and use a variety of
strategies in spite of difficulties or setbacks (Kim, et al., 2015; Walker, Greene, &
Mansell, 2006). Growth mindset also had positive effects on students’ learning and
their SRL strategy use (Dweck, 2014; North Wolfe, 2017; Zakrajsek, 2017). Students
who held a growth mindset were more likely to take challenges, work hard, and use
various strategies in order to deal with problems than those who held a fixed mindset
(Dweck, 2012, 2014; Romero et al., 2014).
In sum, the previous research has consistently shown evidence that motivational fac-
tors, i.e. interest, self-efficacy, and growth mindset, are critical determinants of students’
SRL strategy use. Research has also indicated that students of different achievement lev-
els differ in their motivation and strategy use in learning. High achievers tended to be
much more interested in learning and more confident of their ability to succeed academi-
cally, and have a growth mindset, which motivated them to learn and use a variety of SRL
strategies in order to deal with learning problems or challenges (Dweck, 2012, 2014;
Romero et al., 2014; Zakrajsek, 2017). By contrast, average or low achievers were rela-
tively demotivated in learning. They tended to have relatively less interest in learning, less
confidence about their ability to achieve success, and a lower degree of growth mindset,
which may inhibit their SRL strategy use in learning, especially in face of difficulties
(Abu-Hamour & Al-Hmouz, 2013; Hong et al., 2006; Zakrajsek, 2017). However, previ-
ous research normally included one or two of the motivational factors (e.g. interest,
6 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

self-efficacy, and growth mindset) in the same study. There has been no research that
attempts to differentiate the three motivational factors in the same study. The present
study can offer useful insights into these three different and yet similar concepts with
regard to their impacts on students’ SRL strategy use and English writing competence.

4 Optimal configurations of motivational factors in learning

Despite the clear patterns in motivation between high and low achievers as shown in the
previous research, Eccles et al.’s (1983) expectancy-value theory proposes that students
may configure the combination of the motivational factors in the same learning context
differently at different developmental stages. In other words, the motivational factors
may impact students’ academic achievements in an optimal manner because students
may vary the combinations of these factors (Liem, Lau, & Nie, 2008). According to
expectancy-value theory, expectancies (e.g. self-efficacy and values) are key influences
on achievement related behaviors, such as choices and efforts. Students’ choices of SRL
strategies are a result of their expectancies and values, depending on their learning goals.
In order to achieve best academic results, students of different achievement levels may
juggle these factors in different ways. Guided by expectancy-value theory, the present
study aimed to investigate the relationship patterns between motivation (i.e. self-effi-
cacy, interest, and growth mindset) and SRL strategy use among high, average and low
achievers in their English writing.
Approaches to motivating high achievers to use SRL strategies may not be equally
effective for average or low achievers. Likewise, the effective ways to motivate low
achievers to use SRL strategies may not be suitable for high and average achievers. The
present study will offer important information for English teachers to implement differ-
entiated instruction and help different students improve their SRL strategy use and
English writing competence.

III Research questions

The current study aimed to examine whether the relationship patterns between motiva-
tion and SRL strategy use in English writing vary among high, average and low achiev-
ers. Specifically, this study addressed the following two research questions:

1. What are the levels of the students’ motivation (i.e. self-efficacy, interest, and growth
mindset) and SRL strategy use in English writing, and what are the differences in
motivation and SRL strategy use among high, average and low achievers?
2. How do the relationship patterns between motivation and the use of SRL strate-
gies in English writing vary among high, average and low achievers?

IV Method
1 Participants
Participants were 523 4th grade primary school students (277 boys and 246 girls) from
four primary schools in Hong Kong. Their ages were 9 to10 years. In Hong Kong, young
Bai and Guo 7

children start to learn English from Kindergarten with an informal English curriculum
focusing on spoken English and play. In primary schools, students have seven to ten
English lessons of 35–40 minutes per week. The vast majority of the students’ mother is
Cantonese and the medium of instruction (MOI) in these schools is Cantonese. Only
English lessons are taught in English. The participants joined this study on a voluntary
basis and their consent informs were obtained. The reason why we chose primary stu-
dents was that students in this age group have begun to develop a certain degree of SRL
and it is important to understand their SRL development for effective classroom instruc-
tion (Graham, Harris, Kiuhara, & Fishman, 2017; Schneider & Lockl, 2002). In addition,
there have been concerns on the declining standards of students’ English and lack of
motivation to learn English in Hong Kong (Wang & Kirkpatrick, 2015). Writing in
English poses even more challenges to primary school students in Hong Kong since writ-
ing is considered the most challenging skill, compared with the other English skills, e.g.
speaking and reading. Therefore, it is highly essential to understand how motivation and
self-regulation in English writing may function towards primary school students’ English
writing competence in order to provide effective interventions in the classroom. However,
very few researchers have conducted related research with primary school students in an
L2 context. This study will help better understand primary school students’ SRL devel-
opment by providing useful insights into the relationships between their motivation and
SRL strategy use in English writing.

2 Measures
a  Writing proficiency test.  The participants were divided into three groups (i.e. high, aver-
age and low achievers) based on a writing test. For the writing test, the student partici-
pants were required to write a narrative story according to the pictures given. The test
was created and checked by two English teachers and one principal in order to ensure its
content validity. The story was about a lost boy looking for his family in a theme park
and the students were required to produce 80 words. All students’ compositions were
rated by two independent raters on four aspects of writing, i.e. content, language, vocab-
ulary and organization. The two raters have a bachelor’s degree in English teaching and
have had relevant teaching experience of more than 10 years. Before the formal marking,
they were trained on how to give marks on students’ compositions according to a stand-
ard marking scheme until the inter-rater reliability reached at least 85%.

b Motivation questionnaire on English writing. The motivation measures were mainly

adopted from Bruning et al. (2013) and Dweck’s (2014) questionnaires. The question-
naire is comprised of three scales, i.e. growth mindset (6 items), interest (4 items), and
self-efficacy (7 items). One sample item of growth mindset was ‘My English writing
competence gets better with practice.’ The sample items of interest were ‘I enjoy writing
English compositions’ and ‘Writing English compositions makes me satisfied.’ A sample
item of self-efficacy was ‘I am sure I can write English compositions well.’ All these
scales were designed on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes,
4 = often, 5 = always).
8 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

c  Questionnaire on SRL strategy use in English writing.  Three types of writing strategies
from Bai’s (Bai, 2015; Bai et al., 2014) writing strategy questionnaire were adopted for
the present study, which were planning (7 items), self-monitoring (6 items) and acting on
feedback (6 items). Planning strategies refer to setting specific goals for accomplishing
a composition and a sample item was ‘When I plan for my English composition, I write
out a plan for it.’ Students use self-monitoring strategies to check and evaluate their writ-
ing process and a sample item was ‘I check whether my composition meets my teacher’s
requirements.’ Acting on feedback refers to students’ actions taken according to the
teacher and peers’ feedback, e.g. ‘I incorporate my teacher’s useful feedback in my com-
positions.’ All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3
= sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always). Both the motivation and SRL strategy question-
naires were initially drafted in English and later translated into Chinese. Two primary
school teachers were invited to evaluate the content validity of the questionnaires. Both
teachers agreed that primary school students would be able to understand the items.

3 Procedure
a  Data collection.  The questionnaires used in this study were to measure students’ moti-
vation and their use of SRL strategies in English writing. The participants responded to
the Chinese version of both questionnaires. Before the questionnaires were administered
to the students, a set of directions concerning how to fill in the questionnaire was briefed
to them. They were all informed that the collected data in this study would be kept con-
fidential and only for research purposes. The whole questionnaire administration took
approximately 30 minutes. On average, the students spent 30–40 minutes completing the
composition in class in the same week of the questionnaire administration.

b  Data analyses.  First, to ensure that the measures were equivalent between the high,
average and low achievers, we conducted a series of three-group confirmatory factor
analyses (CFAs), using Mplus 7 to examine the configural, metric, scalar, and residual
invariance, factor variance, and factor covariance of the measures for the three groups of
students, separately. An unconstrained model was compared with a constrained model
for each measure. Second, in order to investigate the differences in motivation and SRL
strategy use among the high, average and low achievers, the sample was first divided into
three groups based on the participants’ scores in the English writing test. After the writ-
ing test scores given by two raters were found to have a good inter-rater reliability, the
average scores of the participants’ two sets of marks given by the two raters served as the
final scores. Results of the inter-rater reliabilities using SPSS 23 suggested that the par-
ticipants’ writing scores given by the two raters in this study had a generally good relia-
bility, Spearman’s rho = .87, p < .001. After confirming that the top 27%, middle 46%,
and bottom 27% of the participants’ performance was significantly different (Ebel &
Frisbie, 1986), we conducted a series of ANOVAs to compare the high, average and low
achievers on the measures of motivation and SRL strategy use. Finally, to examine the
relationship patterns between motivation and SRL strategy use among the high, average
and low achievers, zero-order correlations between all variables measured in this study
Bai and Guo 9

were calculated first, and then a three-group Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) using
Mplus 7 was conducted.

V Results
1 Reliability and discriminant validity of the writing proficiency test
According to Ebel and Frisbie (1986), the discrimination power (D value) of a test falls
into five levels: excellent (> 0.39), good (0.30–0.39), mediocre (0.20–0.29), poor (0.00–
0.20), and worst (< –0.01). The difficulty degree of the writing test for all participants
was 0.40, suggesting that the writing test used in the present study had an excellent reli-
ability. To test the discriminant validity, we compared the mean differences of the writing
scores between the top 27% (N = 141, M = 34.27, SD = 6.24) and the bottom 27% (N
= 141, M = 4.87, SD = 1.93) of the participants according to Ebel and Frisbie (1986).
Results of the t-tests indicated significant differences of the writing scores between the
top and bottom groups, for the content of the writing task, t = 66.399, p < .001, lan-
guage, t = 50.788, p < .001, vocabulary, t = 57.585, p < .001, organization, t = 57.939,
p < .001, and for the total score, t = 61.574, p < .001. This suggests that the writing test
used in the study had good discriminant validity. The middle 46% of the participants
were categorized as average achievers (N = 241, M = 14.70, SD = 4.47).

2 Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs)

Two CFAs were conducted to examine the factor structure of the items measuring moti-
vation and SRL strategy use separately. The measurement model fit the data adequately
for the motivation measures, χ2 = 350.093, df = 106, p < .001, RMSEA = .058, 90%
CI [.051, .064], CFI = .972, TLI = .964, SRMR = .040 and for the SRL strategy use
measures, χ2 = 524.287, df = 145, p < .001, RMSEA = .062, 90% CI [.056, .067], CFI
= .949, TLI = .940, SRMR = .034.

3 Testing the measurement and structural invariance

As shown in Table 1, the results indicated that for the motivation measures, each of the
six invariance models provided a good fit, with RMSEAs < .049, CFIs > .944, TLIs >
.944, SRMR < .077. The decrease in the CFI value and TLI value was less than .01 for
each invariance comparison. There was good evidence for the equality of loadings,
intercepts, residuals and factor variance, and covariances across the three groups of
students.
For SRL strategy use measures, each of the six invariance models provided a good fit,
with RMSEAs < .041, CFIs > .949, TLIs > .945, SRMR < .062. The decrease in the
CFI value and TLI value was less than .01 for each invariance comparison. There was
good evidence for the equality of loadings, intercepts, residuals and factor variance, and
covariances across the three group students as well.
 10

Table 1.  Measurement and structural invariance tests for the motivation and self-regulated learning (SRL) strategy use measures.

Model and invariance level Over fit indexes Model comparison Comparative fit indexes

  S-B χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR ΔS-B χ2 Δ df Δ CFI Δ TLI

Motivational measures:
1. Configural 514* 336 .048 .957 .947 .059  
2. Metric 559* 364 .048 .952 .947 .067 2 vs. 1 45 28 .005 .000
3. Scalar 609* 392 .049 .947 .945 .069 3 vs. 2 50 28 .005 .002
4. Residual 623* 408 .048 .948 .948 .074 4 vs. 3 14 16 .001 .003
5.  Factor variance 628* 412 .049 .946 .945 .075 5 vs. 4 5 4 .002 .003
6.  Factor covariance 635* 417 .049 .944 .944 .077 6 vs. 5 7 5 .002 .001
SRL measures:
1. Configural 593* 438 .039 .954 .945 .045  
2. Metric 627* 470 .038 .952 .948 .055 2 vs. 1 34 32 .002 .003
3. Scalar 672* 502 .038 .949 .947 .058 3 vs. 2 45 32 .003 .003
4. Residual 702* 540 .036 .951 .953 .059 4 vs. 3 38 38 .002 .006
5.  Factor variance 711* 545 .039 .950 .951 .061 5 vs. 4 9 5 .001 .002
6.  Factor covariance 723* 553 .041 .952 .948 .062 6 vs. 5 12 8 .002 .003

Notes. At each step numbered in each section in the sequence of invariance tests, all earlier constraints remain in place. S-B χ2 = Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square
statistic; RMSEA = robust root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI = robust comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index; SRMR = Standardized Root
Mean Square Residual; Δ = difference between the comparison and nested model. * p < .0001.
Language Teaching Research 00(0)
Bai and Guo 11

Table 2.  Internal consistency coefficients, sample items, and descriptive statistics for students’
motivation and self-regulated learning (SRL) strategy use.

Scale Sample item (number of items) Cronbach’s α M SD

Motivation components:
Interest I enjoy writing English compositions. (4) .908 2.83 1.25
Self-efficacy I am sure I can write English compositions well. (7) .907 3.43 1.00
Growth My English writing competence gets better with .891 3.44 1.02
mindset practice. (6)
Self-regulation components:
Planning Before I write an English composition, I write an .869 3.37 .86
outline first. (7)
Self-monitoring I check whether my composition meets my .858 3.20 .96
teacher’s requirements. (6)
Acting on I incorporate my teachers’ useful feedback in my .883 3.21 1.04
feedback compositions (6).

4 Descriptive statistics
The internal consistency coefficients, sample items, and descriptive statistics for each
subscale measured can be found in Table 2. The reliabilities of all subscales ranged from
.858 to .908, suggesting that the items of each subscale had a good internal consistency.

5 Levels of motivation and SRL strategy use in English writing and

differences in motivation and SRL strategy use among the high, average
and low achievers
In terms of motivation (see Table 2), the findings suggested that all the participants
showed a low level of interest (M = 2.83, SD = 1.25), and relatively high levels of self-
efficacy (M = 3.43, SD = 1.00) and growth mindset (M = 3.44, SD = 1.02). With regard
to strategy use, planning (M = 3.37, SD = .86) was the most frequently used type of
strategies, followed by acting on feedback (M = 3.21, SD = 1.04), and self-monitoring
(M = 3.20, SD = .96). Two-way ANOVAs were performed in order to investigate the
mean differences in the motivational factors and SRL strategy use among the high, aver-
age and low achievers. As shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, the high achievers reported
the highest mean scores on all variables of motivation, e.g. growth mindset (M = 3.78,
SD = .97), and also reported the highest mean scores on all variables of SRL strategy
use, e.g. planning (M = 3.81, SD = .74). The low achievers reported the lowest mean
scores on all variables of motivation, e.g. interest (M = 2.37, SD = 1.11), and also
reported the lowest mean scores on all variables of SRL strategy use, e.g. self-monitoring
(M = 2.82, SD = .96) and acting on feedback (M = 2.82, SD = 1.00). The average
achievers reported a generally medium level of motivation and SRL strategy use. The
mean scores for the average achievers fell between those for the high and the low
achievers.
12 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Figure 1.  Mean differences of motivational measures among high, average and low achievers in
English writing.
Note. The significant levels of the mean differences among high, average and low achievers for motivational
variables were marked by asterisks. *** p < .001. SE = Standard Error.

Figure 2.  Mean differences of self-regulation measures among high, average and low achievers.
Note. The significant levels of the mean differences among high, average and low achievers for SRL strategy
variables were marked by asterisks. *** p < .001, SE = Standard Error.
Bai and Guo 13

Table 3.  Zero-order correlations among high achievers’ motivation and self-regulation variables.

Growth mindset Self-efficacy Interest in writing Planning Self-monitoring

Self-efficacy .63***  
Interest in writing .52*** .63***  
Planning .62*** .60*** .52***  
Self-monitoring .67*** .57*** .50*** .77***  
Acting on feedback .60*** .54*** .46*** .75*** .77***

Note. *** p < .001.

Table 4.  Zero-order correlations among average achievers’ motivation and self-regulation variables.

Growth mindset Self-efficacy Interest in writing Planning Self-monitoring

Self-efficacy .65***  
Interest in writing .57*** .69***  
Planning .57*** .63*** .58***  
Self-monitoring .63*** .58*** .55*** .75***  
Acting on feedback .62*** .49*** .50*** .59*** .73***

Note. *** p < .001.

6 Relationship patterns between motivation and SRL strategy use in

English writing among the high, average and low achievers
To investigate the relationship patterns between motivation and SRL strategy use, zero-
order correlations among all subscales were conducted (see Tables 3–5). The results
showed that all the subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other
(.47 ⩽ r ⩽ .82, p < .001), with the strongest correlation between self-monitoring and
planning for the low achievers (r = .82, p < .001). This may suggest that all the motiva-
tion variables, i.e. interest, self-efficacy and growth mindset can significantly promote
the use of SRL strategies, i.e. planning, self-monitoring and acting on feedback.
To further examine the relationship patterns between motivation and SRL strategy use
among the high, average and low achievers, three-group SEM using Mplus 7 was con-
ducted. The results indicated that the model fit the date well, χ2 = 2255.594, df = 1827,
p < .001, RMSEA = .032; 90% CI (.027, .036), CFI = .920, TLI = .917, SRMR = .062.
As shown in Figure 3, for the high achievers, growth mindset had a significant
relationship with the use of planning (r = .29, p < .001), self-monitoring (r = .44,
p < .001), and acting on feedback (r = .40, p < .001). Self-efficacy had a significant
relationship with planning (r = .20, p < .01) and acting on feedback (r = .25, p < .01),
but had no significant relationship with self-monitoring. Interest had no significant rela-
tions with the use of any SRL strategies (p>.05).
As shown in Figure 4, for the average achievers, growth mindset was significantly
correlated with the use of planning (r = .19, p < .001), self-monitoring (r = .33,
14 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Table 5.  Zero-order correlations among low achievers’ motivation and self-regulation
variables.

Growth mindset Self-efficacy Interest in writing Planning Self-monitoring

Self-efficacy .66***  
Interest in writing .47*** .72***  
Planning .66*** .56*** .49***  
Self-monitoring .71*** .62*** .55*** .82***  
Acting on feedback .64*** .58*** .49*** .74*** .78***

Note. *** p < .001.

Figure 3.  Effects of motivation on self-regulated learning (SRL) strategy use for high achievers.
Notes. ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Only significant relations are presented in the figure. AF = Acting on
feedback, GM = Growth mindset, IN = Interest in writing, PL = Planning, SE = Self-efficacy, SM = Self-
monitoring.

p < .001), and acting on feedback (r = .47, p < .001). Self-efficacy was significantly
correlated with the use of planning (r = .27, p < .01) and self-monitoring (r = .28,
p < .01), but not correlated with the use of acting on feedback (p > .05). Interest was
only significantly correlated with the use of acting on feedback (r = .14, p < .01), but
not correlated with the use of planning and self-motoring (p > .05).
For the low achievers (see Figure 5), growth mindset was significantly and strongly
related to the use of planning (r = .40, p < .001), self-monitoring (r = .49, p < .001),
and acting on feedback (r = .40, p < .001). Interest was also significantly but slightly
related to the use of planning (r = .14, p < .05), self-monitoring (r = .18, p < .01), and
acting on feedback (r = .20, p < .01). However, self-efficacy was not significantly
related to the use of any SRL strategies (p > .05).
Bai and Guo 15

Figure 4.  Effects of motivation on SRL strategy use for average achievers.
Notes. ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Only significant relations are presented in the figure. AF = Acting on feedback,
GM = Growth mindset, IN = Interest in writing, PL = Planning, SE = Self-efficacy, SM = Self-monitoring.

Figure 5.  Effects of motivation on SRL strategy use for low achievers.
Notes. ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Only significant relations are presented in the figure. AF = Acting on feedback,
GM = Growth mindset, IN = Interest in writing, PL = Planning, SE = Self-efficacy, SM = Self-monitoring.

VI Discussion
The main purposes of this study were to compare the differences in motivation and
SRL strategy use, and to identify the relationship patterns between motivation and SRL
16 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

strategy use in English writing among the high, average and low achievers in Hong Kong
primary schools. We highlight two major research findings from our data. First, although
the participants had relatively higher levels of self-efficacy and growth mindset, they
showed a low level of interest (M = 2.83) in English writing in general, which may be
an alarming sign on Hong Kong primary school students’ motivation against the back-
drop of declining English standards of school students (Wang & Kirkpatrick, 2015). In
particular, this finding should draw important stakeholders’ attention on motivating pri-
mary school students in learning to write in English through early interventions. Second,
the relationship patterns between motivation and SRL strategy use differed significantly
among the high, average and low achievers.
The findings indicated that the students of different English writing competence lev-
els showed differences in motivation and SRL strategy use. The high achievers reported
a relatively high level of confidence and interest in English writing and believed that
their intelligence was malleable and could grow through efforts and practice, as com-
pared with the average and low achievers. Although the present study confirmed Lee
et al.’s (2018) finding on secondary students’ general lack of interest in English writing,
it has also extended our understanding on interest in English writing to primary school
students in Hong Kong and showed that the high achievers exhibited a quite high level
of interest (M = 3.43, SD = .088). It is worth highlighting not all students may lack
interest in English writing from a younger age. Probably, the writing context in the class-
room (e.g. lack of interesting teaching materials and demotivational teachers’ feedback)
led to many students’ decreasing interest (Lee et al., 2018). Therefore, it is important to
maintain or increase primary school students’ interest in English writing as early as pos-
sible. Moreover, the high achievers also reported frequent use of SRL strategies, i.e.
planning, self-monitoring and acting on feedback in English writing. These results were
consistent with the findings of previous studies. High achievers tended to report a higher
level of motivation and SRL strategy use than their average and low achieving counter-
parts, which may partly account for their superior performance in English writing (Bai
et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2018; Yang & Plakans, 2012). The low achievers in this study
reported a low level of self-efficacy and interest in English writing and they also reported
a low degree of growth mindset. Additionally, the low achievers also reported a low level
of strategy use, i.e. planning, self-monitoring and acting on feedback. These findings
may reflect the reasons for some students’ inferior performance in writing (Cohen &
Pinilla-Herrera, 2009; Yang & Plakans, 2012). Aligned with previous research, the find-
ings of this study suggested that the high achievers showed a clear advantage over their
low achieving peers with regard to their levels of motivation and SRL strategy use (Abu-
Hamour & Al-Hmouz, 2013; Bannert et al., 2014; DiFrancesca et al., 2016; Hong et al.,
2006; Nandagopal & Ericsson, 2012).
Regarding the relations between motivation and SRL strategy use, the findings indi-
cated that growth mindset had significantly and strongly positive relationships with all
types of SRL strategies for the high, average and low achievers. This suggests that when
students believe that their intelligence is malleable and can grow with efforts and prac-
tice, they will be more likely to report more frequent use of SRL strategies (i.e. planning,
self-monitoring and acting on feedback) in English writing. This can apply equally to all
students of different writing competence levels. These findings echo the existing research
Bai and Guo 17

that students who hold a growth mindset are more inclined to set mastery-oriented learn-
ing goals and try to use more strategies in order to build their ability or improve their
skills (Dweck, 2014; Esparza et al., 2014; North Wolfe, 2017). As such, the present study
has shown empirical evidence on the importance of growth mindset in students’ learning
to write in English. Growth mindset should be included as an important motivational
factor in future research.
The findings of this study also revealed different relationship patterns between inter-
est, self-efficacy, and SRL strategy use among the high, average and low achievers.
Interest was not correlated with the high achievers’ use of SRL strategies. Both interest
and self-efficacy were significantly correlated with the average achievers’ use of SRL
strategies. However, self-efficacy was not related to the low achievers’ SRL strategy use.
Although motivation as a whole may impact students’ self-regulation and writing com-
petence according to Bandura’s (2001) social cognitive theory, the students at different
writing competence levels may configure their motivational factors in different ways in
order to achieve their desired learning goals appropriate to their own situations according
to Eccles et al.’s (1983) expectancy-value theory. In the present study, the high, average
and low achievers reported different levels of SRL strategy use, suggesting that they
were at the different stages of SRL.
The low achievers reported a low level of SRL strategy use (M < 3.0), indicating that
they may be at the primary observation or emulation stage of SRL according to Schunk
and Zimmerman’s (2010) social cognitive model of SRL development. At these two
stages, students acquire new writing skills by observing the model’s (e.g. teachers or
peers) actions, such as hearing their descriptions and discerning the consequences of
their actions. Then, they emulate the teacher’s behaviors or skills. In the present study,
the low achievers with a high level of interest in writing are more likely to recognize the
benefits of writing (Abu-Hamour & Al-Hmouz, 2013; Hong et al., 2006), and have more
incentives to use SRL strategies in order to successfully observe and emulate the model’s
behaviors (Graham et al., 2017). However, self-efficacy was found to have no significant
relationships with the low achievers’ use of SRL strategies in English writing. Interest
and growth mindset were positively associated with all the three types of SRL strategies.
This may show that the low achievers usually lacked knowledge or skills to improve
their English writing in general. Even if they had a higher level of self-efficacy, they
were more likely to overestimate their ability to complete a task (Yeung, Lau & Nie,
2011) or overestimate their use of SRL strategies (Winne & Jamieson-Noel, 2002). As a
result, their self-efficacy belief towards English writing turned out to be incompatible
with their SRL strategy use. When they fail to improve their writing competence through
using SRL strategies, they may begin to use them even less frequently (Hong et al.,
2006). This finding was contradictory to the findings in previous research (Kim, et al.,
2015; Walker et al., 2006), which shows a general positive relationship between self-
efficacy and SRL strategy use. One possible reason for this different finding may be due
to the participants’ age group, i.e. primary school students in the present study. Kim
et al.’s (2015) participants were university students, who may have formed a stable self-
efficacy belief towards their English learning. For the low achievers in the present study,
what makes a difference to their use of SRL strategies was their interest and growth
mindset. If they were interested in English writing and thought their English writing
18 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

competence could be enhanced through practice and efforts, they would probably use
their SRL strategies more frequently (Abu-Hamour & Al-Hmouz, 2013; Dweck, 2014).
The average achievers reported a medium level of SRL strategy use (3.0 < M < 3.5),
suggesting that they may be at the emulation or self-control stage of SRL (Schunk &
Zimmerman, 2007). Interest was positively correlated with one type of SRL strategies,
i.e. acting on feedback, self-efficacy with two types of SRL strategies, i.e. planning and
acting on feedback, and growth mindset with all the three types of SRL strategies. At the
emulation stage, unlike its important role in use of SRL strategies for the low achievers,
interest may afford the average achievers with only some incentives to actively emulate
the model’s behaviors in order to improve their writing competence through using vari-
ous SRL strategies (Abu-Hamour & Al-Hmouz, 2013; Graham et al., 2017). In addition,
average achievers usually have a good command of basic knowledge and skills, which
may not be good enough to help them become high achievers yet (Guo, 2017). That’s
why they reported a medium level of self-efficacy with regard to their English writing
competence. At the self-control stage, students with a higher level of confidence are
more likely to independently perform related tasks and internalize the skills being taught
(Kim et al., 2015; Walker et al., 2006).
The high achievers reported a high level of SRL strategy use (M > 3.5), which means
that they were more likely at the self-control and self-regulation stages of SRL (Schunk
& Zimmerman, 2010). At the two advanced stages of SRL, the high achievers mainly
focused on performance goals and have achieved automaticity in their learning behaviors
(Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2002). In other words, they have internalized the use of SRL
strategies in English writing. In light of this, even when the average or high achievers
have little interest in English writing, they may still be able to use SRL strategies auto-
matically in order to successfully accomplish writing tasks. This may account for why
interest had no significant relationship with the high achievers’ SRL strategy use.
However, in order to achieve performance goals, the high achievers still need confidence
to feel capable of performing specific tasks and regulate their use of SRL strategies (Kim
et al., 2015; Walker et al., 2006; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2002). Therefore, self-efficacy
had significant relations with the high achievers’ use of SRL strategies, i.e. planning and
acting on feedback.

VII Implications
The findings can contribute to the limited literature in the research field of English writ-
ing and classroom instruction. Theoretically, this study shows some intricate relation-
ships between motivation and SRL strategy use by providing useful insights into the
individual differences in the context of English writing research.
Given the importance of motivation in English writing, English teachers should be
encouraged to create a positive classroom environment for students to learn to write in
English. Practically, the findings may provide illuminations for further improving
English writing instructions for students of different competence levels with regard to
their SRL strategy use in English writing. These findings may help teachers better
understand the reasons for students’ superior or inferior performance in English writing
and improve their instructions accordingly. Specifically, English teachers need to focus
Bai and Guo 19

on improving all students’ growth mindset by emphasizing the value of constant efforts
instead of innate intelligence in achieving academic success (Dweck, 2014). For exam-
ple, English teachers can explain to their students that if they try their best, they can
definitely achieve better English writing results. Some students can be invited to share
how they made good progress in English writing through efforts. For low achievers,
English teachers should focus on increasing their interest in English writing first and
guide them to use more SRL strategies. English teachers can design interesting teaching
materials for students to learn in English writing lessons and provide more support (Lee
et al., 2018). In addition, the difficulty level of English writing tasks should be made
appropriate for students of different writing competence levels. For average achievers,
teachers should try to improve their interest and self-efficacy together by providing
more encouragement and scaffolding in order to promote their more frequent use of
SRL strategies in English writing (Guo, 2017). For high achievers, teachers may need
to focus on improving or maintaining their self-efficacy in order to enhance their use of
SRL strategies. The English writing tasks set for high achievers should be challenging
enough in order to boost their confidence. More importantly, relevant professional
development workshops for English teachers should be provided in order for them to
learn how to differentiate their writing instructions for students of different writing
competence levels in the classroom.

VIII Conclusions and limitations

The findings of this study showed that the students of different writing competence
levels had significant differences in motivation and SRL strategy use. The high achiev-
ers reported the highest levels of motivation and SRL strategy use, while the low achiev-
ers reported the lowest levels of motivation and SRL strategy use in English writing.
More importantly, growth mindset was found to have strong and positive relationships
with all students’ SRL strategy use. The students showed little interest in English writ-
ing. Additionally, the results also indicated different relationship patterns between moti-
vation and SRL strategy use among the high, average and low achievers. On the one
hand, interest was found most important for improving the low achievers’ use of SRL
strategies. With increasing writing competence, interest may start to play a relatively
less important role. On the other hand, self-efficacy only had positive relations with the
high and average achievers’ use of SRL strategies, but had no significant relations with
the low achievers’ use of any SRL strategies. Self-efficacy may only significantly pro-
mote students’ SRL strategy use when they have reached a certain level of competence
in English writing.
This study has several limitations and some implications for future research. First, our
results were based on the students’ self-reports. Although this method has been most
frequently used, it may be susceptible to response bias (Virtanen & Nevgi, 2010). Future
research should employ observational approaches or seek other new ways to provide
stronger support for the findings. Second, the representativeness of the sample was lim-
ited because we only had primary school students from Hong Kong as our participants,
which may not allow for generalizations to the other age groups or different cultures.
Thus, future research samples should be larger and from different cultures.
20 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Conflict of Interest
Also, if this study is part of a larger study or if you have used the same data in whole or in part in
other papers, both already published or under review please state where the paper is published and
describe clearly and in as much detail as you think necessary where the similarities and differences
are and how the current manuscript makes a different and distinct contribution to the field.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Barry Bai https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2124-5061

References
Abu-Hamour, B., & Al-Hmouz, H. (2013). A study of gifted high, moderate, and low achievers in
their personal characteristics and attitudes toward school and teachers. International Journal
of Special Education, 28, 5–15.
Alexander, J.M., & Schnick, A.K. (2008). Motivation. In J.A., & C.M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical
issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 423–447). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Bai, B. (2015). An intervention study of writing strategies in Singapore primary schools. System,
53, 96–106.
Bai, B., Hu, G.W., & Gu, Y. (2014). The relationship between writing strategies and English
proficiency in Singapore primary schools. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23,
355–365.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 1–26.
Bannert, M., Reimann, P., & Sonnenberg, C. (2014). Process mining techniques for analysing
patterns and strategies in students’ self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9,
161–185.
Berger, J.L., & Karabenick, S.A. (2011). Motivation and students’ use of learning strategies:
Evidence of unidirectional effects in mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 21,
416–428.
Boo, Z., Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). L2 motivation research 2005–2014: Understanding a
publication surge and a challenging landscape. System, 55, 145–157.
Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D.F., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining
dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 25–38.
Chien, S.C. (2012). Students’ use of writing strategies and their English writing achievements in
Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32, 93–112.
Cohen, A.D., & Pinilla-Herrera, A. (2009). Communicating grammatically: Constructing a learner
strategies website for Spanish. In Kao, T., & Y. Lin (Eds.), A new look at language teach-
ing and testing: English as subject and vehicle (pp. 63–83). Taipei: Language Training and
Testing Center.
de Larios, J.R., Manchón, R., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2008). The foreign language writer’s stra-
tegic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 17, 30–47.
Bai and Guo 21

Dermitzaki, I., Andreou, G., & Paraskeva, V. (2008). High and low reading comprehension
achievers’ strategic behaviors and their relation to performance in a reading comprehension
situation. Reading Psychology, 29, 471–492.
DiFrancesca, D., Nietfeld, J.L., & Cao, L. (2016). A comparison of high and low achieving stu-
dents on self-regulated learning variables. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 228–236.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2013). Teaching and researching: Motivation. New York: Routledge.
Dweck, C. (2012). Mindsets and human nature: Promoting change in the Middle East, the school-
yard, the racial divide, and willpower. American Psychologist, 67, 614–622.
Dweck, C. (2014). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Ebel, R.L., & Frisbie, D.A. (1986). Essentials of education measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Eccles, J., Adler, T.F., Futterman, R., et al. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors.
In J.T. Spence, (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological
approaches (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
Esparza, J., Shumow, L., & Schmidt, J.A. (2014). Growth mindset of gifted seventh grade students
in Science. NCSSSMST Journal, 19, 6–13.
Flower, L.S., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition
and Communication, 32, 365–387.
Graham, S., Harris, K.R., Kiuhara, S.A., & Fishman, E.J. (2017). The relationship among strategic
writing behavior, writing motivation, and writing performance with young, developing writ-
ers. The Elementary School Journal, 118, 82–104.
Guo, W.J. (2017). The relationships between Chinese secondary teachers’ feedback and students’
self-regulated learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Chinese University of Hong
Kong, China.
Hong, E., Sas, M., & Sas, J.C. (2006). Test-taking strategies of high and low mathematics achiev-
ers. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 144–155.
Kim, D.H., Wang, C., Ahn, H.S., & Bong, M. (2015). English language learners’ self-efficacy
profiles and relationship with self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual
Differences, 38, 136–142.
Lee, I., Yu, S., & Liu, Y. (2018). Hong Kong secondary students’ motivation in EFL writing: A
survey study. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 176–187.
Liem, A.D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals
in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement out-
come. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 486–512.
Martínez, J.J.R., Pérez, M.L.V., & Navarrete, J.H. (2015). Language learning strategy use by
Spanish EFL students: The effect of proficiency level, gender, and motivation. Revista de
Investigación Educativa, 34, 133–149.
Nandagopal, K., & Ericsson, K.A. (2012). An expert performance approach to the study of individ-
ual differences in self-regulated learning activities in upper-level college students. Learning
and Individual Differences, 22, 597–609.
North Wolfe, S. (2017). Effects of a growth mindset intervention on first-year college student
academic performance. Unpublished master’s dissertation, Central Washington University,
Ellensburg, WA, USA.
Oxford, R.L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulated regu-
lation in context. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
Pintrich, P., Pintrich, E., & de Groot, E.A.M. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,
33–40.
22 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Romero, C., Master, A., Paunesku, D., Dweck, C., & Gross, J. (2014). Academic and emotional
functioning in middle school: The role of implicit theories. Emotion, 14, 227–234.
Schneider, W., & Lockl, K. (2002). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and
adolescents. In Perfect, T.J., & B.L. Schwartz (Eds.), Applied Metacognition (pp. 224–257).
Cambridge: University Press.
Schünemann, N., Spörer, N., & Brunstein, J.C. (2013). Integrating self-regulation in whole-class
reciprocal teaching: A moderator–mediator analysis of incremental effects on fifth graders’
reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 289–305.
Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (2010). Social origins of self-regulatory competence.
Educational Psychologist, 32, 195–208.
Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R., & Meece, M.L. (2008) Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications. 3rd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Virtanen, P., & Nevgi, A. (2010). Disciplinary and gender differences among higher education
students in self- regulated learning strategies. Educational Psychology, 30, 323–347.
Walker, C.O., Greene, B.A., & Mansell, R.A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/
extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and
Individual Differences, 16, 1–12.
Wang, L., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2015). Trilingual education in Hong Kong primary schools: An
overview. Multilingual Education, 5, 1–26.
Winne, P.H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports about
study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572.
Yang, H.C., & Plakans, L. (2012). Second language writers’ strategy use and performance on an
integrated reading-listening-writing task. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 80–103.
Yeung, A.S., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2011). Primary and secondary students’ motivation in learning
English: Grade and gender differences. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 246–256.
Zakrajsek, J.A. (2017). Promoting growth mindset in middle school students: An intervention
using read-alouds. Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.
Zander, L., Brouwer, J., Jansen, E., Crayen, C., & Hannover, B. (2018). Academic self-efficacy,
growth mindsets, and university students’ integration in academic and social support net-
works. Learning and Individual Differences, 62, 98–107.
Zhang, Y., & Guo, H. (2012). A study of English writing and domain-specific motivation and self-
efficacy of Chinese EFL learners. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics,
16, 101–121.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41, 64–70.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill
through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 660–668.