





































Putri Anggraeni, et al / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (1) (2017) 

174 

 

 
ELT FORUM 12 (3) (2023) 

 

Journal of English Language Teaching 

 
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt 

 

 

Using reflective journal writing to develop undergraduates’ metacognitive 

awareness and writing performance 

 

Muhammad Mukhtar Aliyu1, Mohammed Sani Ya’u1, Halima Sadiya Yakubu1, Yusuf 

Muhhad Jika1, Ahmed Tanimu Jibril1 
 
1Department of English and Literary Study, Bauchi State University Gadau, Nigeria 

 

Article Info 
________________ 
Article History: 
Received on 27 April 
2023 

Approved on 15 
November 2023 
Published on 30 
November 2023 

________________ 
Keywords: ESL 
writing; metacognitive 
awareness; Nigeria; 
reflective journal 
writing; 
undergraduates 
____________________ 

 

 

Abstract 
___________________________________________________________________ 
Many undergraduates face various challenges in ESL writing, especially academic 
writing. Most of the students lack the basic knowledge and skills required to 

accomplish their writing tasks. This is known as metacognition. Therefore, this 

study employed a reflective journal writing strategy to develop undergraduates’ 
metacognitive awareness and writing performance. The study adopted a pre-and-

post quasi-experimental research design with an intact class of (87) third-year 
undergraduates in a creative writing class. The study employed two instruments for 

the data collection: a writing task and a metacognitive questionnaire. Both 
instruments were used before and after the reflective journaling for 12 weeks. The 

pre-and post-test mean scores of the two instruments were compared using a paired-

sample t-test. The results of the study show a significant improvement in the 
participants’ metacognitive awareness level and writing skills after writing the 

reflective journals. The study makes some recommendations for further studies and 

practices. 

 

  
Correspondence Address: p-ISSN 2252-6706 | e-ISSN 2721-4532 

Department of English & Literary Studies 
Bauchi State University, Gadau, Nigeria 
 

 

E-mail: amamukhtar@basug.edu.ng  

http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1333515478&1&&
http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1576658845&1&&


M. M. Aliyu, M. S. Ya’u, H. S. Yakubu, Y. M. Jika, & A. T. Jibril| ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

175 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Academic writing has been a difficult and daunting task for many undergraduates, especially English 

as a Second Language (ESL) students (Dobakhti, 2011; Kanoksilapatham, 2003). In Nigeria, for 

instance, English is used as a second language and a medium of instruction in all three levels of 

education, namely, the primary, the secondary, and the tertiary (Omotoyinbo, & Olaniyi, 2019; 

Omowumi, 2019; Tom-Lawyer et al., 2021). However, researchers and lecturers in tertiary 

institutions have been complaining about the poor quality of undergraduates’ academic writing. 

Studies have revealed various problems in the students’ writing and suggested various solutions (see 

Boscolo et al., 2007; Pineteh, 2014; Al-Khairy, 2013; Bian, & Wang, 2016). Nevertheless, the 

problems persist due to numerous factors. One such factor is the students’ lack of metacognitive 

awareness in writing.  

Metacognitive awareness according to Wenden (1998), is the understanding that learners 

have of themselves, the learning task, and the learning process. She categorized metacognitive 

awareness into three categories: person knowledge, task knowledge, and strategy knowledge. Person 

knowledge refers to the learners' general knowledge of themselves as learners, including things like 

age, linguistic ability, and motivation, which may help or impede their learning. Task knowledge is 

the understanding of the task's purpose by the learners. It also comprises information about the 

requirements of a task, such as the knowledge and skills required to do it, as well as knowledge 

about the nature of the activity in question. The last component of strategy knowledge is the 

learners' understanding of the methods that should be applied to manage, direct, and regulate 

learning. Thus, in writing, metacognitive awareness refers to students' understanding of their writing 

abilities, the writing assignment, and the writing process (Kim, 2013). She also divides 

metacognitive knowledge into six categories: metacognitive task knowledge, personal learning 

process information, strategy knowledge, text and accuracy knowledge, problem-solving knowledge, 

and discourse features knowledge. The understanding of numerous variables pertinent to a writing 

assignment, such as the task's goal and the traits of the writing genre, is known as metacognitive 

knowledge of the task. The understanding of numerous aspects of learning to write in English, such 

as unique approaches to enhance L2 writing skills by oneself or through teaching, is what she refers 

to as metacognitive knowledge of the personal learning process. She defines metacognitive 

knowledge of strategy as the general understanding of successful writing tactics in L2. A plan to 

make up for a lack of language knowledge, for instance. The use of discourse markers and accurate 

textual elements in writing is part of metacognitive knowledge of text and accuracy. The 

understanding of methods for problem-solving when faced with writing challenges, such as sentence 

construction and time management, is known as metacognitive knowledge of problem-solving. The 

awareness of the features of conversation in English and L1 in writing and speaking pertains to the 

final subcomponent, metacognitive knowledge of discourse features. This necessitates the need to 

come up with alternative strategies such as reflective journal writing that would help to develop the 

student’s metacognitive awareness and eventually writing skills.  

Reflective journal writing has been an effective strategy for developing students’ writing skills 

(Cisero, 2006; Lindroth, 2015). It is a kind of writing that allows students to think, explore, and give 

their opinions concerning their learning experiences, events, or new information (Farrah, 2012). It 

encourages students to develop their critical thinking skills and intellectual abilities. Reflective 

journal writing, also known as journal keeping, which provides students with a valuable opportunity 

for extensive reading practices, as stated by Peñaflorida (2002). Many students find it enjoyable since 

it allows them the freedom to write about a topic of their choice at their convenience. Moreover, 

engaging in reflective journal writing offers students privacy, freedom, and a safe space to 

experiment with and develop their ideas as writers. Purposeful reflection is found to minimize 

irrational decision-making and allow someone to make decisions by carefully reviewing data 

obtained from diverse experiences, leading to purposeful thinking (Lindroth, 2015). Engaging in 

communication of their ideas and messages through reflective journal writing enables students to 

foster self-reflection and make both macro- and micro-linguistic improvements, as emphasized by 

Sudirman et al. (2021).  

Theoretically, reflective writing is established on Dewey’s idea of reflection. According to 

him, reflection involves pupils associating material with in-depth experiences and connecting it to 

other concepts (Rodgers, 2002). In contrast, Grimmett and Erickson (1988) define reflection as a 

mental state that allows an individual to contemplate past behaviors or experiences, with the aim of 

avoiding failure in the future. This concept addresses the paradoxical statement that "one cannot 



M. M. Aliyu, M. S. Ya’u, H. S. Yakubu, Y. M. Jika, & A. T. Jibril| ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

176 

 

know without acting, yet one cannot act without knowing." Building on Dewey's definition, 

Rodgers (2002) proposes a classification of reflection that comprises four stages: presence in the 

experience, learning to see, description of the experience, learning to describe and differentiate, 

analysis, learning to think critically and develop theory, and experimentation, learning to act wisely. 

It is common for most people to perceive reflection as a process connected to their experiences. 

Several research works have looked into reflective journal writing and discovered that it helps 

students to improve their writing skills. For instance, reflective journal writing among students is a 

predictor of academic achievement by Tsingos-Lucas et al. (2017). Moreover, Amirkhanova et al. 

(2016) found that writing reflective journals while studying English as a foreign language in Russia 

has a significant positive effect on students' motivation and self-confidence. Students can pose 

questions and provide their solutions in journals because they are open-ended (Lindroth, 2015). In 

the classroom, journals can be utilised as a tool for self-evaluation to evaluate the educational 

strategy and philosophical foundations (Lee, 2008). In Lee's (2008) work, four distinct categories of 

journals were identified. Dialogue journals involved interactions between the teacher and student, 

where both parties responded to each other's entries. In Response journals, students used these 

journals to share their personal responses and reflections on their educational activities and 

experiences. Teaching journals documented students' thoughts and reactions while they were being 

taught by their teachers. Interactive journals recorded the interactions and exchanges between 

groups of students, fostering collaborative learning experiences. 

Numerous studies have highlighted the positive influence of reflective journal writing on 

students' writing skills. Knapp (2012) utilized reflective journal writing to gain insights into her 

students' educational experiences, and she found that it helped them reflect on their "apprenticeships 

of experience" while providing teachers with valuable resources for facilitating student teaching 

experiences. Ni’ma et al. (2020) conducted research that revealed reflective journal writing to be 

more effective than traditional writing methods in enhancing students' motivation and promoting 

their writing skills. This finding was further supported by Jannah et al. (2020), who observed a 

significant positive impact of reflective journal writing on the writing performance of Indonesian 

high school students. Similarly, Sudirman et al. (2021) discovered that reflective journal writing 

improved students' ability to effectively communicate ideas through writing. By keeping a reflective 

journal, students were able to engage in critical reflections and self-discoveries in their writing, 

allowing them to focus on aspects such as order, unity, coherence, cohesiveness, content, and 

organization of ideas. In Mexico, May-Melendez et al. (2019) conducted research that revealed 

students' positive perceptions of reflective journal writing in their learning process, further 

highlighting its benefits in educational settings.  

From the existing literature on reflective journaling, previous studies have primarily 

concentrated on investigating the effectiveness of reflective journal writing in fostering students' 

curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking, as well as exploring teachers' perceptions (e.g., Towndrow 

et al., 2008; Hume, 2009; Farrah, 2012; Abednia et al., 2013). Some studies have also explored its 

impact on course performance (e.g., Farrah, 2012). However, a noticeable gap in the research is the 

limited attention given to assessing the effectiveness of reflective journal writing in enhancing 

undergraduates' metacognitive awareness. Understanding how reflective journaling influences 

metacognition in this context is an area that warrants further investigation and exploration in the 

field of education and learning. Therefore, this study aims to examine the effectiveness of reflective 

journal writing on students’ writing skills and metacognitive awareness. To guide the study, the 

following research questions have been formulated: (1) What is the effect of reflective journal writing 

on undergraduates writing performanca?; and (2) what is the effect of reflective journal writing on 

undergraduates’ metacognitive awareness? 

 

METHODS 

A pre-and-post-quasi experimental research design was adopted in the study to examine the 

effectiveness of reflective journal writing to develop undergraduates’ metacognitive awareness in 

ESL writing and writing performance. Specifically, a time series design was adopted where 

participants were given an essay writing task, a metacognitive questionnaire (pre-test) for one week, 

treatment (reflective journaling) for 12 weeks, and a post-test for one week to see the effect of 

manipulating the independent variable (reflective journaling) on the dependent variable 

(metacognitive awareness and writing performance). The mean scores of the two instruments were 

compared using a paired-sample t-test. 



M. M. Aliyu, M. S. Ya’u, H. S. Yakubu, Y. M. Jika, & A. T. Jibril| ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

177 

 

 

Respondents  

A complete class of eighty-seven (87) third-year undergraduates in Nigeria was selected for the 

study. All the participants were taking English majors and were enrolled in a creative writing course 

for 14 weeks. 

 

Instruments  

The study employed two instruments for the data collection: a writing task and a questionnaire. 

Both instruments were used before and after the reflective journal writing. In the writing task, the 

participants were asked to write a descriptive essay of 350 to 500 words on any of the following 

topics: My Home Town, My best Food, My Life, My best Friend. These topics are selected because 

they are closely related to the participants’ real-life.   

The questionnaire used in the study was adapted from Kim (2013) and focused on measuring 

participants' metacognitive awareness. It consisted of 29 closed-ended items presented on a 5-point 

Likert scale. The questionnaire aimed to collect data related to the participants' metacognitive 

awareness in writing in various areas, including task requirements, personal learning process, 

strategy utilization, text and accuracy, problem-solving, and discourse features. By employing this 

questionnaire, the researchers sought to gain valuable insights into the participants' metacognitive 

awareness in these specific domains. Specifically, the metacognitive questionnaire items numbered 

1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 24 were designed to gather information about the participants' 

metacognition regarding task requirements. These items aimed to assess the participants' awareness 

of various aspects relevant to a writing task, including the purpose of the task and the characteristics 

of the writing genre. On the other hand, items 4, 6, 12, 17, and 20 were focused on gathering 

information about the participants' metacognition of their personal learning process. These items 

aimed to explore various aspects of learning to write in English, such as individual variations in 

improving L2 writing proficiency, either through instruction or self-directed efforts. 

Additionally, information on the participants' awareness of writing strategies was elicited 

through items 3, 15, and 28. These items aimed to assess the participants' awareness of effective 

strategies used to achieve their writing objectives. It also included the strategies participants 

employed to compensate for a lack of vocabulary knowledge and the approaches they used when 

faced with difficulties in their writing.  

The questionnaire also assessed the participants' metacognitive knowledge of text and 

accuracy through items 5, 9, 19, and 23. These items aimed to gather information about the 

participants' awareness of using discourse markers and maintaining accurate textual features in their 

writing. Regarding metacognitive knowledge of problem-solving, items 16, 25, 27, and 29 were 

included in the questionnaire. These items sought to elicit information about the participants' 

awareness of effective problem-solving strategies when faced with difficulties in writing, such as 

handling sentence formation challenges or managing time constraints. Lastly, items 18, 21, 22, and 

26 were designed to gather information about the participants' metacognitive knowledge of discourse 

features. This included their awareness of the distinct characteristics of English and their native 

language (L1) discourse in both writing and speaking contexts. 

 

Reflective journal writing 

The concept of reflective journaling was explained to the participants so they would know exactly 

what it comprises. Students received instruction on how to keep a reflective journal as well as 

information on its benefits and main uses. After that, they were given precise instructions on how to 

keep a reflective notebook. The instructions detail the format to use, the vocabulary to use, 

examples, and the structure of a reflective journal. Finally, the participants were required to keep a 

weekly reflective notebook for 10 weeks straight on any subject connected to their experiences in the 

class and at school in general. 

 

Data collection procedures  

During Week 1 of the data collection, the participants were required to complete two tasks. First, 

they were asked to write an essay on a given topic. Second, they were asked to fill out the 

metacognitive awareness questionnaire to assess their initial metacognitive awareness levels. 

Throughout the treatment period, which spanned 10 consecutive weeks, the participants were 

instructed to maintain a weekly reflective journal. In these journals, they could write about any topic 



M. M. Aliyu, M. S. Ya’u, H. S. Yakubu, Y. M. Jika, & A. T. Jibril| ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

178 

 

related to their experiences in the class and the school in general. The purpose of the reflective 

journal was to encourage them to reflect on their learning experiences and develop their 

metacognitive skills. 

After the 10-week treatment period, the participants were again asked to complete two tasks. 

They were required to write another essay, similar to the one they wrote in week 1, and also fill out 

the metacognitive awareness questionnaire once more. This allowed the researchers to assess any 

potential changes or improvements in the participants' writing and metacognitive awareness after 

engaging in the reflective journaling process. 

 

Data analysis  

To address Research Question 1, which is on the effectiveness of reflective journaling on 

undergraduates writing performance, the pre-and-post-treatment essays written by the participants 

were graded and the mean scores were compared using a paired-sample t-test. Jacobs et al.’s (1981) 

scale. was used to score the writing scripts. The scale has five components: content, organization, 

language use, vocabulary, and mechanics. The components are described on a scale of 0-100. Each 

component of the scale comprises the following four categories: excellent to very good, good to 

average, fair to poor, and very poor. The following is the description of the components. 

 

• Content: knowledge of the topic, viability and development of a thesis relevant to the 

topic 

• Organisation: fluency of expression, organisation, logical sequencing, and cohesive topic  

• Vocabulary: the range of vocabulary, word choice, forms and usage, registers related to 

topic 

• Language Use: sentence structures; errors of agreement, tense, number, word order, 

articles, pronouns, and prepositions  

• Mechanics: spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, paragraphing, etc. 

 

To answer Research Question 2 on the effectiveness of reflective journal writing on the 

respondents’ awareness of metacognition in writing, a paired-sample t-test was conducted to 

compare the mean scores of the questionnaire for the pre-and post-treatment. Before conducting the 

analysis, reliability and normality test were run to ensure that the assumptions of the a paired-sample 

t-test are fulfilled.  

The findings from the reliability test of the metacognitive questionnaire demonstrate a high 

level of consistency among the items. The overall Cronbach's Alpha for the six questionnaire 

components was calculated to be 0.95, indicating a strong internal consistency. Moreover, each 

individual component also displayed Cronbach's Alpha values ranging from 0.80 to 0.94, which are 

considered to indicate very good internal consistency (George & Mallery, 2003). 

 

Table 1: Reliability of the Metacognitive Questionnaire 
Components  Cronbach's Alpha                                     

Task Requirements 0.92 

Personal Learning Process 0.86 
Strategy Use 0.93 

Text and Accuracy 0.80 
Problem Solving 0.92 

Discourse Features 0.87 

Overall 0.95 

 

The outcomes of the normality test indicate that the data exhibited a normal distribution. The 

Skewness values ranged from -.108 to -.902, while the Kurtosis values ranged from -.011 to -1.049. 

These results were considered acceptable according to George and Mallery (2003), signifying that 

the data was normally distributed and suitable for parametric analysis, to compare the pre- and post-

treatment scores on the questionnaires, a paired-sample t-test was utilized. 

 

 

Table 2: Skewness and Kurtosis for the Metacognitive Questionnaire 
Components Skewness Kurtosis 



M. M. Aliyu, M. S. Ya’u, H. S. Yakubu, Y. M. Jika, & A. T. Jibril| ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

179 

 

Task Requirements -.902 .608 

Personal Learning Process -.288 -.421 

Strategy Use .720 -.526 
Text and Accuracy .108 -.844 

Problem Solving -.856 -.011 
Discourse Features -.393 -1.049 

 

 

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 

Effectiveness of reflective writing journal on undergraduates' writing performance 

Table 3 displays a comparison of pre- and post-writing scores based on a scale comprising five (5) 

components as described above. The aim is to investigate the effectiveness of reflective writing 

journals on undergraduates' writing performance, as addressed in research question 1. The results of 

the paired-sample t-test, which compares the pre- and post-mean scores of the writing task, indicate a 

significant difference in the overall mean scores of the participants' writing (t = 9.09, p = .000). This 

suggests that reflective journal writing had a positive effect on the participants' writing performance. 

Moreover, significant improvements were observed in all components of the participants' writing 

after the treatment: content (t = 13.78, p = .000), organization (t = 8.93, p = .000), vocabulary (t = 

3.31, p = .004), language use (t = 3.38, p = .004), and mechanics (t = 6.01, p = .000). This indicates 

that reflective journal writing positively influenced each aspect of the participants' writing. A 

summary of the results of the paired-sample t-test is provided in Table 3. The findings support the 

effectiveness of reflective journal writing in enhancing undergraduates' writing performance across 

various components. 

 

Table 3: Comparison of pre-and post-writing scores (n= 87) 
Components Mean SD Std. Er 

Mean  

95% Confidence Interval 

of the Difference  

t-value df Sig. (2-

tailed) 

Lower  Upper 

Content 3.000 0.92 0.217 2.540 3.459 13.78 17 .000 
Organisation 2.083 0.98 0.233 1.591 2.575 8.93 17 .000 

Vocabulary 1.305 1.67 0.394 0.473 2.137 3.31 17 .004 
Language Use  1.527 1.91 0.450 0.576 2.479 3.38 17 .004 

Mechanics 0.777 0.54 0.129 0.505 1.050 6.01 17 .000 
Overall 8.694 4.05 0.955 6.677 10.711 9.09 17 .000 

 

Effectiveness of reflective writing journal on undergraduates’ metacognitive awareness 

To address research question 2 of the study, which focuses on the effect of reflective journal writing 

on undergraduates' metacognitive awareness, a paired-sample t-test was also conducted. This test 

aimed to compare the mean scores of the metacognitive questionnaires before and after the reflective 

journal writing intervention. The results of the paired-sample t-test indicate that there are significant 

differences in the overall mean scores of the metacognitive questionnaire before and after the 

reflective journal writing (t = -3.725, p = .000). This suggests that engaging in reflective journal 

writing had a positive impact on the participants' metacognitive awareness. Furthermore, the results 

reveal significant differences in all components of metacognition for pre- and post-treatment 

reflective journal writing. These components include personal knowledge (t = -3.531, p = .000), task 

knowledge (t = -3.334, p = .001), strategy knowledge (t = -3.524, p = .000), planning (t = -3.727, p = 

.000), monitoring (t = -2.740, p = .006), and evaluation (t = -3.746, p = .000). This indicates that the 

reflective journal writing intervention positively influenced various aspects of the participants' 

metacognitive awareness. The detailed results of the statistical analysis are presented in Table 4, 

providing a comprehensive overview of the positive effects of reflective journal writing on 

undergraduates' metacognitive awareness.  

 

 

 

 

Table 4: paired-sample t-test for pre-and post-treatment metacognitive scores (n=87) 



M. M. Aliyu, M. S. Ya’u, H. S. Yakubu, Y. M. Jika, & A. T. Jibril| ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

180 

 

Components Pre 

Mean 

Post. Mean Mean Diff. t value Sig.(2 

tailed) 

Personal knowledge 36.15 43.72 -7.76 -3.53 .000 

Task knowledge 14.33 16.15 -1.72 -3.33 .001 

Strategy knowledge 28.26 34.37 -6.11 -3.52 .000 
Planning 23.98 36.26 -12.37 -3.72 .000 

Monitoring 14.37 15.50 -1.22 -2.74 .006 
Evaluation 15.98 21.98 -6.00 -3.75 .000 

Overall score 132.61 167.61 -35.00 -3.73 .000 

p value = .05 

 

Interestingly, both the participants’ writing performance and metacognitive awareness levels 

increased beyond expectations, as shown by Tables 1 and 2 above. Based on these findings, it can be 

concluded that reflective journaling has positive effects on Nigerian undergraduates’ metacognitive 

awareness which eventually improve their writing performance. Students are encouraged to critically 

reflect on their writing processes and pinpoint opportunities for development by using reflective 

journals. In addition, metacognitive awareness supports students' increased self-awareness of their 

learning and thought processes, enabling them to plan, monitor, and evaluate their writing more 

effectively. 

 

Discussion 

The present study focused on examining the effectiveness of reflective journal writing in 

improving undergraduates' metacognitive awareness in English as a Second Language (ESL) 

writing. The findings demonstrated a significant positive impact of reflective journal writing on the 

students' metacognitive awareness in ESL writing. These results are consistent with previous 

research, such as the studies conducted by Klassen & Willoughby (2003) and Tsai (2009), which 

have also suggested that reflective writing can be a beneficial tool for enhancing students' 

metacognitive skills. The present study's findings align with those of various other research works, 

including Tsingos-Lucas, Bosnic-Anticevich, Schneider, and Smith (2017), who observed that 

reflective journal writing and metacognitive awareness play a crucial role in improving students' 

writing abilities. Similarly, research conducted by Ni'ma, Sumardi, and Tarjana (2020) supported the 

notion that reflective journal writing is more effective than traditional writing methods in enhancing 

students' writing skills. Additionally, May-Melendez, Balderas-Garza, Alcocer-Vazquez, and 

Quijano-Zavala (2019) found that students in Mexico had a positive perception of using reflective 

journals as part of their educational process. Overall, the findings of the present study contribute to 

the growing body of evidence highlighting the benefits of reflective journal writing for enhancing 

students' metacognitive awareness and writing skills in ESL contexts.  

Several explanations can be offered to explain the positive impact of reflective journal writing 

on students’ metacognitive awareness in ESL writing. Firstly, the process of reflection can encourage 

Nigerian undergraduates to monitor and evaluate their learning strategies and identify areas for 

improvement. This is because most of the methods adopted by Nigerian teachers do not engage the 

students in reflective writing. By reflecting on their writing processes and experiences, students can 

gain insights into their strengths and weaknesses, and develop strategies to enhance their writing 

skills (Ward & Lee, 2003; Yancey, 1998). Secondly, most Nigerian undergraduates do not keep 

records of their learning experiences for improvement because the traditional teacher-centered 

approach adopted in most schools does not encourage that. Also, many students are after the 

certificate, thus, their focus is just “read to pass”. Thus, reflective journal writing can provide 

students with a safe space to express their thoughts and feelings about their writing experiences. This 

is particularly relevant for ESL students who may feel anxious or self-conscious about their writing 

abilities. Through reflective writing, students can explore their feelings and attitudes towards 

writing, and develop a more positive and confident mindset towards the writing process (Nakamaru, 

2014; Tsui, 1996). Finally, reflective journal writing can help to bridge the gap between students' 

current and desired levels of proficiency in ESL writing. By engaging in a process of self-reflection, 

students can identify their strengths and weaknesses, and develop strategies to bridge the gap 

between their current and desired levels of proficiency (Bray & Tang, 2009; Flower & Hayes, 1981).  

 



M. M. Aliyu, M. S. Ya’u, H. S. Yakubu, Y. M. Jika, & A. T. Jibril| ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

181 

 

CONCLUSION 

This study examines the impact of reflective journal writing strategy to develop undergraduates’ 

awareness of metacognition and writing performance. The results show a significant improvement in 

the participants’ post-treatment writing and metacognitive awareness level. This suggests the positive 

effect of reflective journal writing on writing performance and metacognitive awareness level. 

Although the present study suggests that reflective journal writing can be a valuable tool for 

enhancing undergraduates’ metacognitive awareness in ESL writing, the study has some limitations. 

Firstly, the sample size is relatively small, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Also, 

there is a lack of control and experimental groups. The study was also conducted for only one 

semester and the participants were not interviewed to get their experiences and perceptions 

regarding reflective journal writing. Future studies should address the limitations of the study by 

using a larger sample size, both control and experimental groups. Further studies should also 

investigate the participants’ experiences and perceptions of reflective journal writing. Despite the 

limitations, the study is useful as it provides insight to researchers, teachers and policymakers on 

how to design and implement curricula on writing to include reflective writing journals based on 

students’ educational level, interests and field of study. Overall, the study suggests that reflective 

journaling can be an effective tool for promoting metacognitive awareness in writing among 

Nigerian undergraduates. Through reflective journaling, students can develop a deeper 

understanding of their writing processes and strategies to monitor and regulate their writing. This, in 

turn, can help them to become more effective writers. 

 

FUNDING STATEMENT 

The authors did not receive any funding for this study. 

 

REFERENCES 

Abednia, A., Hovassapian, A., Teimournezhad, S., & Ghanbari, N. (2013). Reflective journal 

writing: Exploring in-service EFL teachers' perceptions. System, 41(3), 503-514. 

Al-Khairy, M. A. (2013). Saudi English-major undergraduates' academic writing problems: A Taif 

University perspective. English Language Teaching, 6(6), 1-12. 

Alt, D. & Raichel, N. (2020). Reflective journaling and metacognitive awareness: Insights from a 

longitudinal study in higher education. Reflective Practice 21(2), 145-58. 

Amirkhanovaa, K. M., Ageevab, A. V., & Fakhretdinov, R. M. (2016). Enhancing students’ 

learning motivation through reflective journal writing. Proceedings of IFTE 2016: 2nd 

International Forum on Teacher Education. 

Bray, M., & Tang, G. (2009). Using learner diaries to enhance learner autonomy. ELT Journal, 

63(4), 386-395. 

Bian, X., & Wang, X. (2016). Chinese EFL undergraduates’ academic writing: Rhetorical 

difficulties and suggestions. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 20-29. 

Boscolo, P., Arfé, B., & Quarisa, M. (2007). Improving the quality of students' academic writing: An 

intervention study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 419-438. 

Cisero, C. A. (2006). Does reflective journal writing improve course performance? College Teaching, 

54(2), 231–236. doi:10.3200/ctch.54.2.231-236. 

Dobakhti. L. (2011). The discussion section of research articles in applied linguistics: Generic 

structure and stance features/Leila Dobakhti (Doctoral dissertation, University of Malaya). 

Farrah, M. (2012). Reflective journal writing as an effective technique in the writing process. An-

Najah University Journal for Research-B (Humanities), 26(4), 997-1025. 

Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and 

Communication, 32(4), 365-387. 

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows tep by step: A simple guide and reference. 

11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 

Grimmett, P. P., & Erickson, G. (1988). Reflection in teacher education. 

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2009). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Premises, 

evolution, and the future. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 6, 113-135. 

Hume, A. (2009). Promoting higher levels of reflective writing in student journals. Higher Education 

Research & Development, 28, 247–260. 



M. M. Aliyu, M. S. Ya’u, H. S. Yakubu, Y. M. Jika, & A. T. Jibril| ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

182 

 

Jannah, D. M., Usman, B., Daud, B., Muslem, A., & Abdul Samad, I. (2020). Improving students’ 

writing skill through reflective journal: A study at a senior high school in Aceh. Humanities & 

Social Sciences Reviews, 8(3), 221-230. 

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2003). A corpus-based investigation of scientific research articles: Linking 

move analysis with multidimensional analysis. Georgetown University. Retrieved from 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2012.05.050 

Kim, S. H. (2013). Metacognitive knowledge in second language writing. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 

Michigan State University. 

Klassen, R. M., & Willoughby, T. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in the academic motivation 

and achievement of Canadian Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal high school students. The Journal 

of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 796-808. 

Lee, I. (2008). Fostering preservice reflection through response journals. Teacher Education Quarterly, 

117–139. 

Lindroth, J. T. (2015). Reflective journals: A review of the literature. Update: Applications of Research 

in Music Education, 34(1), 66-72. 

May-Melendez, R., Balderas-Garza, M., Alcocer-Vazquez, E., Quijano-Zavala, G. (2019). 

Reflective journal: The learners’ perspective in formal instruction. European Scientific Journal, 

15(10), 252-160. 

Moon, J. A. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. London 

Sterling, VA: Kogan Page: Stylus Pub. 

Nakamaru, Y. (2014). Reflective writing and the revision process: What were they thinking? What 

did they do? Journal of Basic Writing, 33(2), 20-36. 

Ni’ma, H. N. A, Sumardi & Tarjana, S. S. (2020). Reflective journals as self-assessment to promote 

students’ writing skill. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 7(1), 48-58. 

http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/760 

Omotoyinbo, D., & Olaniyi, F. (2019). Quality of teachers: Effective teaching and learning of 

English In secondary schools, Akoko North West Local Government, Ondo State. Developing 

Country Studies, 19(2), 12-27. 

Omowumi, O. (2019). Communication challenges of teaching in English language in Nigerian 

primary education. Journal of Research and Method in Education, 9(6), 18-23. 

Ormrod, J. E. (2016). Human learning. Seventh. Pearson. 

Penaflorida, A. H. (2002). Response to student writing: A step toward learner 

autonomy. Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice, 344. 

Pineteh, E. A. (2014). The academic writing challenges of undergraduate students: A South African 

case study. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 12-22. 

Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. 

Teachers College Record, 104, 842–866. 

Riley‐Douchet, C., & Wilson, S. (1997). A three‐step method of self‐reflection using reflective 

journal writing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(5), 964-968. 

Sudirman, A., Gemilang, A. V., & Kristanto, T. M. A. (2021a). Harnessing the power of reflective 

journal writing in global contexts: A systematic literature review. International Journal of 

Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(12), 174-194. 

Sudirman, A., Gemilang, A. V., & Kristanto, T. M. A. (2021b). The power of reflective journal 

writing for university students from the EFL perspective. Studies in English Language and 

Education, 8(3), 1061-1079. 

Tom-Lawyer, O., Thomas, M., & Kalane, M. (2021). Examining the status of English as a medium 

of instruction in sub-saharan Africa: A comparative study of Botswana and Nigeria. European 

Scientific Journal, 17(36), 51. 

Tom-Lawyer, O., & Thomas, M. (2020). Re-examining the status of the English Language in 

Anglophone Western Africa: A comparative study of Ghana and Nigeria. English Linguistics 

Research, 19(4), 622. 

Towndrow, P. A., Ling, T. A., & Venthan, A. M. (2008). Promoting inquiry through science 

reflective journal writing. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(3), 

279-283. 

Tsingos-Lucas, C., Bosnic-Anticevich, S., Schneider, C. R., Smith, B.N, L. (2017). Using Reflective 

Writing as a Predictor of Academic Success in Different Assessment Formats. American Journal 

of Pharmaceutical Education, 81 (1), 1-8. 



M. M. Aliyu, M. S. Ya’u, H. S. Yakubu, Y. M. Jika, & A. T. Jibril| ELT Forum 12 (3) (2023) 

183 

 

Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language. Applied Linguistics, 19 (4), 515–537. 


