Hello everyone.
I would like to introduce a paper we read at our recent English seminar.

Paper Title: Longitudinal interactions of L2 learners’ motivations and strategic behavior in strategies-based writing instruction: A self-regulated learning perspective
Authors: Lin Sophie Teng, Jia Wei, Lawrence Jun Zhang
Journal: AILA Review (Vol.37, No.2, pp.188–214)
Publication Year: 2024
DOI: 10.1075/aila.24026.ten

1. Introduction
This paper reports the results of a longitudinal qualitative study that tracked how the “motivation” and “strategic behavior” of learners using English as a second language (L2) interact and develop over time under writing instruction based on Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) strategies. The subjects of the study were two second-year English majors in China (one high-proficiency and one low-proficiency), and data were collected at three time points (T1, T2, T3) during a four-month course. The study specifically reports on the results of examining the processes of acquisition, use, and transfer of SRL strategies, as well as changes in self-efficacy, task value, and goal orientation.

2. Literature Review
SRL and L2 Writing
SRL is a framework in which learners autonomously cycle through “goal setting → monitoring → evaluation → adjustment,” and it is understood as an integration of motivation, cognition, and metacognition. In L2 writing research, it has been shown that self-efficacy, task value, and goal orientation promote strategy use and metacognitive adjustment; however, it has been pointed out that many previous studies are cross-sectional and fail to sufficiently capture temporal changes and interactions.

Expectancy-Value Theory and Goal Orientation Theory
The following theoretical frameworks are used to explain the relationship between SRL and motivation:
• Expectancy-Value Theory: The likelihood of success (expectancy) and task value determine the amount of effort put into a task.
• Goal Orientation Theory: Mastery goals and performance goals influence strategy selection and effort allocation.
However, the authors argue that how differences in proficiency change the relationship between self-efficacy, strategy use, and learning outcomes has not yet been sufficiently verified.

Need for Integrated Verification of SRL Strategy Instruction and Motivation
It has been reported that SRL strategy instruction incorporating formative assessment promotes improvements in task value, self-efficacy, and goal orientation. On the other hand, a lack of longitudinal studies tracking “changes over time” in motivation, strategy use, and outcomes, as well as the “adjustment process as scaffolding is reduced,” is cited as a gap in previous research. To bridge this gap, this study simultaneously tracks changes in motivation, strategies, and proficiency within a longitudinal framework linked to classroom practice.

3. Research Methodology
Participants and Context
• Participants: Two second-year English majors at a mid-tier university in China (Bin, high-proficiency; Lei, low-proficiency).
• Context: A writing course held for 1.5 hours per week for 16 weeks in an EMI (English-medium instruction) environment.
• Instructional Model: In consultation with the research team, the instructor redesigned the course based on an instructional model incorporating SRL strategies (6 stages: knowledge activation → teacher-led discussion → modeling → practice → supported practice → autonomous performance).
Data Collection and Analysis
The following data were collected at three time points (T1: Week 1, T2: Week 9, T3: Week 16):
• Semi-structured interviews: Evaluation of classes based on motivational factors (task value, goal orientation, self-efficacy) and SRL strategies.
• Reflective journals: Transitions in the understanding/use of SRL strategies and motivation.
• Classroom observation field notes: Strategic behavior within the classroom.

4. Results
Low-proficiency learner (Lei)
• T1: Understanding of SRL strategies was fragmented, extrinsic task value such as “improving grades” was strong, and the learner felt time pressure in the EMI environment. Even with knowledge of strategies, the learner was unable to utilize them in writing situations.
• T2: Paragraph structure was visualized through tools like TREE (a structure for English composition) and graphic organizers, and self-efficacy and task value increased through peer collaboration, leading to recognition of the course’s utility.
• T3: As scaffolding was reduced, the learner stagnated again during the planning stage, failed to advance strategy use, and remained at the level of superficial corrections. As a result of perceiving failure as a denial of ability, the learner showed a regression where self-efficacy decreased, performance orientation strengthened, and strategy use weakened.

High-proficiency learner (Bin)
• T1: Had high expectations for the class and set distinct performance and mastery goals, but felt anxious about procedural knowledge.
• T2: Strategically used TREE to finalize structure during the planning stage, and the hierarchical application of checklists (“higher-order criteria (logic/inter-paragraph) → lower-order criteria (grammar/usage)”) became established. Metacognition was also enhanced by explaining procedures to others during peer collaboration.
• T3: Maintained value by voluntarily increasing the “challenge level” of tasks, such as by adding counter-arguments and rebuttals. By verbalizing and recording successful experiences in detail, active engagement and strategy transfer were stably maintained.

Answers to Research Questions
• RQ1: While evaluations of the class were high for both at T2, by T3, the high-proficiency learner maintained their valuation, whereas the low-proficiency learner’s evaluation regressed due to a sense of burden and decreased confidence.
• RQ2: Self-efficacy, task value, and intrinsic goal orientation increased for both at T2, but at T3, the high-proficiency learner maintained or increased these through the redesign of challenge levels, whereas the low-proficiency learner decreased due to perceiving failure negatively.

5. Discussion
Explicit instruction based on SRL strategies was generally accepted positively and shown to increase task value, goal orientation, and self-efficacy. “Social and metacognitive scaffolding,” such as peer collaboration, dialogic activities, and cyclical practice, reduced cognitive load and anxiety, promoted the execution of self-monitoring and self-evaluation, and strengthened confidence in writing. However, differences based on proficiency became clear.
• Low-proficiency: Although improvement was seen at T2, there was a tendency for effort to become difficult to maintain due to task complexity and the reduction of scaffolding.
• High-proficiency: Although the application of SRL strategies matured, it was also shown that value perception could plateau if the teaching method became repetitive.
To address these issues, the following points are proposed in this study:
• Syllabus design based on learner differences.
• Adjustment of the intensity and timing of scaffolding based on “knowledge activation → modeling → supported practice → autonomous performance.”
• Hierarchization of checklists and guide questions (logic → structure → sentence/word).
• Role design for “supporter/supported” in peer collaboration.
Limitations of this study and future tasks
Limitations of this study include the small sample size of only two English majors, the specificity of the context of a particular writing course, and the fact that the observation period of four months cannot be called long-term.

6. Reflections
I selected this paper due to its high relevance to my own research theme. The longitudinal verification of the interaction between motivation and strategies in L2 writing instruction, and the examination of learners by proficiency level, were very informative. I believe that the specific presentation of necessary scaffolding according to proficiency, after verifying changes in motivation and strategies, provides practical implications for designing writing courses that integrate SRL.
As for limitations, the data for verifying changes in motivation and strategies were limited to self-reported types such as interviews and reflective journals, and the verification of strategies was based on monthly classroom observations. Since a learner’s strategic behavior may fluctuate depending on task content (e.g., themes), I believe that future research could achieve more multifaceted verification by using objective indicators such as learner products and behavioral logs in combination.
In the seminar discussion, there was an active exchange of critical opinions regarding the research methodology, such as the background behind this study adopting only qualitative research methods. It was also an opportunity to reaffirm the importance of firmly establishing the basic axis of whether the research purpose, research questions, and research methods are aligned.

Report by: Sayo Tanaka