Anxiety and Self-efficacy’s Relationship with Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions of the use of Metacognitive Writing Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing interest in promoting metacognition among college and university students, as this has been linked with positive student learning outcomes. This study explores the relationship between student writing anxiety and self-efficacy on undergraduate students’ self-reported use of metacognitive writing strategies. Using undergraduate student survey data from a large, research-intensive university in Ontario, Canada, we found reductions in writing anxiety and increased self-efficacy had a statistically significant association with students’ perceptions of using metacognitive writing strategies. These findings have implications for both theory and practice. They demonstrate that writing metacognition is influenced by emotional factors, such as the level of anxiety and the extent of self-beliefs around writing. It also suggests that writing interventions that seek to reduce anxiety and increase undergraduate students’ self-efficacy with respect to writing may positively enhance students’ use of metacognitive writing strategies, and ultimately improve student writing outcomes. On s’intéresse de plus en plus à promouvoir la métacognition parmi les étudiants des collèges et des universités car ce processus a été lié avec des résultats d’apprentissage positifs. Cette étude explore la relation qui existe entre l’anxiété que les étudiants ressentent devant les travaux d’écriture et l’efficacité personnelle tel que rapporté dans des questionnaires portant sur l’usage de stratégies d’écriture métacognitives remplis par des étudiants de premier cycle. À partir de données de sondages menés auprès d’étudiants de premier cycle d’une grande université d’Ontario, Canada, centrée sur la recherche, nous avons découvert que la réduction de l’anxiété ressentie devant les travaux d’écriture et l’augmentation de l’efficacité personnelle présentaient une association statistiquement significative avec les perceptions des étudiants qui utilisaient des stratégies d’écriture métacognitives. Ces résultats ont des implications à la fois théoriques et pratiques. Ils prouvent que la métacognition en écriture est influencée par des facteurs émotionnels, tels que le degré d’anxiété et la portée des auto-croyances en ce qui concerne les travaux d’écriture. Ils suggèrent également que les interventions d’écriture qui tentent de réduire l’anxiété et d’augmenter l’efficacité personnelle des étudiants en ce qui a trait à l’écriture pourraient améliorer de façon positive l’emploi fait par les étudiants de stratégies d’écriture métacognitives et, en fin de compte, améliorer les résultats des étudiants en matière d’écriture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".