1. Introduction

Nowadays, learning English is valued around the world and mastering English language in general and productive skills in particular is required by many EFL learners. In the meantime, writing, as a productive skill, is learned when the English foreign language (EFL) learners start learning to communicate through written form. However, it is assumed that writing is the most difficult skill to master for EFL learners and writing is more complicated than the other language skills (Erkan & Saban, 2011). Even a native speaker of the English language may experience difficulty during writing (Johnstone et al., 2002). The writing skill requires a well-structured way of presenting thoughts in an organized and planned way (Javed et al., 2013). Advanced writing skill such IELTS is also one of the basic requirements for better academic performance and academic success (Kellogg, 2008). Therefore, finding ways of assisting the EFL learners to improve their IELTS writing performance is of great importance. Teaching metacognitive strategies has been suggested as an alternative way to improve learners’ writing skill. 

 Flavell (1979), for the first time, introduced the term metacognition as a knowledge related to anyone’s cognitive procedures. According to Piaget (1847), metacognition is intentional, conscious, foresighted, and useful. Kentridge and Heywood (2000) mentioned that the use of metacognitive strategies should be encouraged in mastering language skills. A lot of studies have stated that once EFL learners’ awareness of writing strategies improves, their writing performance also improves (Panahandeh & Asl, 2014). Metacognitive awareness in writing skills helps students decide which strategies can be used and how they should be used (Pitenoee et al., 2017). Metacognitive learning strategies make students get as independent, alerted, and motivated as possible in the whole process of learning, especially in writing (Al-Jarrah et al., 2018). In writing skill, as it is prerequisite, weak students are mostly weak in thinking skills like writing as one of the hardest skills in language learning proficiency, which demands a great deal of thinking skills (Surat et al., 2014). Hence, the presence of metacognitive strategies as declarative, conditional, and procedural knowledge in writing tasks can be dynamically helpful. 

2. Review of Literature

There are many studies that emphasize the application of metacognitive strategies in all learning skills. In a qualitative survey, Aripin and Rahmat (2019) used think-aloud protocol as the primary method in their data collecting and found out that both male and female students used different metacognitive writing strategies in their writing. Teng et al. (2020) illustrated the predictive influences of different metacognitive strategies on EFL learners’ academic writing performance. Using metacognitive strategies is considered as a constructive method which improves students’ ability to make a creative writing piece (Liu, 2015; Tufekci & Sapar, 2011; Zhan, 2016). Anthonysamy (2021) confirmed the relationship between the implementation of metacognitive strategies and applying them in online learning. Likewise, Azizi et al. (2017), Bouirane (2015), Fitrianti and Susanti (2021), Razı (2012), Mutar and Nimehchisalem (2017) stated the correlation between learners’ metacognitive strategies and the quality of their writing. In the cross-disciplinary construct, these strategies comprise the elements such as planning, monitoring, evaluating, and problem-solving (Zhang, et al, 2021). Hosseini (2021) also demonstrated the effects of these strategies on Iranian EFL learners’ writing skill. Teaching metacognitive strategies can also improve EFL students’ communication skills, grammar knowledge, lexical, and enhance their awareness of the relationship between culture and language (Tufekci & Sapar, 2011).   

      Flavell (1979) mentioned metacognitive structures such as self-questioning, meditation, reflection, awareness of strengths and weaknesses, awareness of learning styles, mnemonic aids, thinking aloud, graphic organizers, regulation checklists, planning ahead, and final thoughts. Papleontiou-louca (2003) implemented various categorization of metacognitive writing strategies through planning, monitoring and evaluating taxonomies. Adams et al. (2015) summarizes six levels of Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives as knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. According to Anthonysamy (2021), learners are unconscious of the way to look inward to check how they learn and to measure which methods are influential especially facing new types of learning online since they lack metacognitive skills which are too vital to their talent.

 The researches mentioned above highlighted the confirmed correlation between metacognitive strategies and writing performance which can be applied in EFL writing settings. Although such views can strongly highlight academic writing strategies and implementation, none debated and explored metacognitive writing strategies in IELTS writing task 2. As such in order to fill the gap, this study is going to answer the following research questions:

 (1) What are the IELTS candidates’ attitudes toward the use of metacognitive strategies in writing task two? 

(2) To what extent does the performance of face-to-face and online candidates differ in applying metacognitive strategies in IELTS writing task?

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

The whole population was the EFL students in English Techno-science Institute (ETI), studying IELTS exam. This was a quasi-experimental study to investigate applying metacognitive strategies on IELTS task 2 writing in both online and face-to-face learning classes. 

3.2. Population and Sample

50 students were chosen in age range between 20 to 34 years old with the background of upper intermediate to the advanced levels.

3.3. Instruments

The instruments applied in this study were a homogenizing test, a pre-test, a questionnaire, and a post-test.

 3.3.1. Homogenizing Test

The test chosen to homogenize the students was selected from ETC TOEIC– as a high scale examination through which the students were asked to write a single paragraph (Appendix A).     The time given to them, both in traditional and online contexts, was 30 minutes. Two other raters rated the scores.

3.3.2. Pre-test

The pre-test of writing was chosen from the IELTS Cambridge (Appendix B). The time given to them, both in traditional and online contexts, was 40 minutes. Two raters rated the papers according to IELTS wring descriptors.

3.3.3. Questionnaire

 A self-report questionnaire (Appendix D) was used to check the attitudes of students after using metacognitive strategies taught in IELTS writing task 2. The questionnaire enjoyed a reliability index of .973

 3.3.4. Post-test

The post-test was chosen from the IELTS Cambridge Test (Appendix C). Two raters according to IELTS writing band descriptors, rated the participants’ papers. The time for the test was again 40 minutes as in the IELTS exam. 

3.4. Procedure

In this study, the researcher attempted to directly and accurately teach the metacognitive strategies; namely, planning, monitoring, evaluating, and problem-solving to both online and face-to-face students.

A sample paragraph was given to 50 the online and face-to- face students, to be homogenized, and then 25 of them were selected as the advanced level owning the required ability in writing. Then an IELTS writing task 2 topic was given to the selected participants as the pre-test to write on WhatsApp for the online students and on paper for the traditional ones. The papers were given to two other colleagues as IELTS trainers. After the treatment sessions, a post-test was given to finalize the output of the implementation of the metacognitive strategies. Finally, a questionnaire was designed to analyze the participants’ attitudes toward the effects of applying metacognitive strategies on IELTS writing task 2.  

3.4.1. Online Context

In the online sessions, during the teaching-learning process, the lecturer employed WhatsApp to do teaching metacognitive strategies, and explaining and arguing writing materials, in IELTS task 2. The participants were taught how to plan for their writing, gather and organize their ideas about the topic, monitor their mistakes, evaluate their writing based on the IELTS writing rubrics and then revise their writing before turning it in.

3.4.2. Face-to-face Context

Similarly, the process of teaching metacognitive strategies was like the online context. The participants of the face-to-face class were taught how to plan, monitor, and evaluate their writing.

3.5. Data Collection Techniques

The first and the second research questions were to analyze the frequency counts and percentages and one-way analysis of covariance, respectively. Before discussing the results, the process of subject selection and reliability of the instruments will be reported.

To select the two groups of homogenous students to participate in the main study there was a topic of the IELTS writing task 2 for 50 students. The students were selected on the base of the mean of 68.62 plus and minus 22.86. The 25 selected students were divided into two groups of online (n = 12) and face-to-face (n = 13).

3.6. Reliability of the Instruments 

There was the computing of Cronbach’s alpha reliability index for the attitude questionnaire. As displayed in Table 2, the questionnaire enjoyed a reliability index of .973. The reliability index of .973 is considered appropriate. A rule of thumb that applies to most situations is; .9 = excellent,.8 = good, .7 = acceptable, .6 = questionable, .5 = poor and .5 = unacceptable”. Based on these criteria, the attitude questionnaire enjoyed an excellent reliability index.

 Two raters rated the pretest and posttest of IELTS writing task 2. Table 3 displays the results of the Pearson correlations computed to estimate the inter-rater reliability of the two raters who rated the participants’ performance on the pretest and posttest of IELTS writing task 2. Based on these results it can be concluded that there were significant agreements between the two raters on;

 Pretest of IELTS writing task 2 (r (23) = .682, representing a large effect size^[1], p = .000), and 

 Posttest of IELTS writing task 2 (r (23) = .595, representing a large effect size, p = .000).

4. Results

4.1. Answering the First Research Question

What are the IELTS candidates` attitudes towards learning metacognitive strategies in writing task two?

Table 5 displays the frequencies, percentages and standardized residuals (Std. Residuals) for the IELTS candidates’ attitude towards learning metacognitive strategies in IELTS writing performance. The results indicated that the online group (8.3 %, Std. Residual = -1.2), more than face-to-face group (4.7 %, Std. Residual = 1.2), strongly disagreed with the idea that they got through learning metacognitive strategies in IELTS writing performance. None of the Std. Residuals were higher than +/- 1.96. That is to say, none of the two groups showed significant disagreement. 

       On the other hand; the face-to-face group (13 %, Std. Residual = 3.1), more than online group (2.5 %, Std. Residual = -3.2) significantly disagreed with the idea that they got through learning metacognitive strategies in IELTS writing performance. Although none of the Std. Residuals were higher than +/- 1.96, the online group (29 %, Std. Residual = .7), more than face-to-face group (24.7 %, Std. Residual = -.7), slightly disagreed with the idea that they got through learning metacognitive strategies in IELTS writing performance. The online group (35 %, Std. Residual = .5), more than face-to-face group (32.1 %, Std. Residual = -.5), partly agreed with the idea that they got through learning metacognitive strategies in IELTS writing performance. None of the Std. Residuals were higher than +/- 1.96.

       The face-to-face group (22.1 %, Std. Residual = 2.5) significantly more than the online group (9.8 %, Std. Residual = -2.6) believed that they got through learning metacognitive strategies in IELTS writing performance. And finally; the online group (14.9 %, Std. Residual = 33) significantly more than the face-to-face group (3.3 %, Std. Residual = -3.2) strongly agreed with the idea that they got through learning metacognitive strategies in IELTS writing performance. Figure 4.1 displays the percentages discussed above.

4.2. Answering the Second Research Question

To what extent does the performance of face-to-face and online candidates differ in applying metacognitive strategies in IELTS writing task?

There was a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to compare the face-to-face and online groups’ means on posttest of IELTS writing task 2 performance after controlling for the effect of pretest to probe the second research question.

The significant results of Levene’s test (Table 6) indicated that the homogeneity of variances was not retained on the posttest of writing test (F (1, 23) = 4.61, p < .05). 

Table 7 displays the results of the linearity test. The significant results of the linearity test; i.e. (F (1, 15) = 27.80, p < .05, η² = .809 representing a large effect size^[2]) indicated that there was a linear relationship between the pretest and posttest of IELTS writing task 2.

       The non-significant interaction (Table 8) between covariate (pretest) and independent variable (types of treatment), i.e. (F (1, 21) = .410, p > .05, Partial η² = .019 representing a weak effect size) indicated that there were linear relationships between the pretest and posttest of IELTS writing task 2 across the two groups.

       Table 9 displays the descriptive statistics for the face-to-face and online groups on the posttest of IELTS writing task 2 after controlling for the effect of pretest. The results showed that the online group (M = 97.00, SE = .392) had a slightly higher mean than the face-to-face group (M = 96.69, SE = .376) after controlling for the effect of the pretest.

   Table 10 displays the main results of one-way ANCOVA. The results (F (1, 22) = .315, p < .01, partial η² = .014 representing a weak effect size) indicated that there was not any significant difference between online and face-to-face groups’ means on posttest of IELTS writing task 2 after controlling for the effect of the pretest. 

5. Discussion

This study tried to compare teaching metacognitive strategies in two environments, face-to-face and online classes. After teaching essential metacognitive strategies such as planning, monitoring, evaluating, and problem-solving, a questionnaire was also presented to the participants. Regarding the first research question, the results showed a dramatic change in the attitudes of the both groups of students using metacognitive strategies. The online group more than the face-to-face group strongly agreed with the idea that they got through learning metacognitive strategies in IELTS writing performance.

       Regarding the second research question, the results indicated that there was not any significant difference between the online and face-to-face groups’ means on the posttest of IELTS writing task 2. Both groups used the writing strategies in a very similar way in their writing tasks which is in line with the results of Mutar and Nimehchisalem (2017) who confirmed that high and low- proficiency level learners use the same kind of writing strategies. The research showed that both groups improved their writing after learning metacognitive strategies witch is in line with Azizi et al. (2017), Adams et al. (2015), Bouirane (2015), and Razı (2012) who mentioned that metacognitive strategies help EFL learners in their writing tasks and there is a positive correlation between learners’ use of metacognitive writing strategies and their grades. These findings are confirmed by the results of Razı (2012), Bai et al. (2014), and Zhang, et al (2021), whose participants used metacognitive strategies such as planning, monitoring, evaluating, and problem-solving at a high frequency in their tasks. The findings were in line with Anthonysamy (2021), Zhan (2016) and Liu (2015) who confirmed that the use of writing strategies help learners to be more successful than those who do not.

6. Conclusion and Suggestions for Further Research

This study examined the influence of applying metacognitive strategies on two different groups of IELTS students, in IELTS writing task 2. The findings indicated that both online and face-to-face classes had fully positive attitudes towards the implication of metacognitive writing strategies in writing skill, here IELTS writing task 2. Although the environment was completely different, but in the presence of the same deep teaching metacognitive strategies, similar successful results was achieved in writing performance. 

       Further studies can be done to evaluate other metacognitive strategies or other related points in writing skill. Besides, the same strategies can be applied in online classes, the same as face-to-face ones, without any worry, as the Corona Virus proved online learning has to be there forever and it must be in the center of attention and improvement.  Also, since the attitudes of the students are of paramount importance for evaluating the score of writing, the ways of rising this score in high scale exams like IELTS can be taught, in the presence of strategies like metacognitive ones. Future studies in this domain are recommended to IELTS candidates, not only in writing but also in reading, listening and speaking.