Theoretical Retrospectives for Developing a Constructivist Learning Environment Model to Enhance Metacognitive Regulation in Authentic Writing

Authors

  • Xi Qu

    Innovation Technology and Learning Science Department, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
  • Sumalee Chaijaroen

    Innovation Technology and Learning Science Department, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i3.8452
Received: 16 January 2025 | Revised: 15 February 2025 | Accepted: 18 February 2025 | Published Online: 27 February 2025

Abstract

This study aims to conduct a theoretical retrospective on the development of a Constructivist Learning Environment (CLE) model. An innovative Constructivist Learning Environment (CLE) model will be developed based on the theoretical traceability to improve high school students’ metacognitive regulation in authentic writing tasks. Following Richey and Klein’s model research framework, the study is currently in the design and development phase, where a CLE is being systematically created and refined. The model integrates six theoretical foundations—psychological, pedagogical, cognitive, metacognitive, media, and technology principles—and is built around seven interconnected components: a Problem Base and Learning Mission, a Learning Resource Center, a Cognitive Tool Center, a Collaboration Center, an Enhanced Metacognitive Regulation Center, a Scaffolding Center, and a Coaching Center. Each component is designed to engage students in real-world authentic writing, providing tools and structured support to develop self-regulation, reflective thinking, and effective writing strategies. Expert input from content, media design, instructional model design, and educational evaluation informs each phase of development, ensuring the model’s rigor and relevance. Although implementation has not yet begun, the CLE model represents a pioneering approach in secondary education, bridging the gap between theoretical understanding and practical application, and equipping students with essential skills for lifelong learning and effective communication in real-world contexts.

Keywords:

Constructivist Learning Environment Model; Constructivism; Metacognitive Regulation; Authentic Writing

References

[1] Robillos, R.J., 2023. The impact of the FlipGrid application within the genre - based framework on students’ writing skills and self - regulation of learning awareness. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal. 14(4), 456–475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37237/140404

[2] Graham, S., 2019. Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education. 43(1), 277–303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x18821125

[3] Sala-Bubaré, A., Castelló, M., 2023. Exploring writing processes in authentic writing tasks: A multimodal mixed-method approach. Journal of Second Language Writing. 61, 101038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101038

[4] Behizadeh, N., 2018. Aiming for authenticity: Successes and struggles of an attempt to increase authenticity in writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 62(4), 411–419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.911

[5] Blanch, N., Forsythe, L.C., Van Allen, J., Roberts, S.K., 2017. Reigniting Writers: Using the literacy block with elementary students to support authentic writing experiences. Childhood Education. 93(1), 48–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2017.1275238

[6] Robillos, R.J., Thongpai, J., 2022. Computer-aided argument mapping within metacognitive approach: its impact on students’ argumentative writing performance and self-regulated learning. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network. 15(2), 160–186. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1358704

[7] Robillos, R.J., Bustos, I.G., 2022. Learners’ listening skill and metacognitive awareness through metacognitive strategy instruction with pedagogical cycle. International Journal of Instruction. 15(3), 393–412. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15322a

[8] Gu, Z., Wang, F., Jiang, C., et al., 2023. DEVELOPMENT REPORT ON CHINESE LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN CHINA (2021–2022). Social Sciences Literature Publishing House. Available from: https://www.pishu.com.cn/skwx_ps/bookdetail?SiteID=14&ID=13697456

[9] Wang, X., Wang, J., 2024. Comparing Chinese L2 writing performance in paper-based and computer - based modes: Perspectives from the writing product and process. Assessing Writing. 61, 100849. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100849

[10] Piaget, J., 1979. Comments on Vygotsky's critical remarks. Archives de Psychologie. 47(183), 237–249.

[11] Vygotsky, L.S., Cole, M., 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA.

[12] Schraw, G., Moshman, D., 1995. Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review. 7(4), 351–371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02212307

[13] Jonassen, D.H., Rohrer-Murphy, L., 1999. Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development. 47(1), 61–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299477

[14] Sawyer, R.K., 2006. Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 1(1), 41–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2005.08.001

[15] Flavell, J.H., 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist. 34(10), 906–911. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906

[16] Allal, L., 2000. Metacognitive regulation of writing in the classroom. In: Camps, A., Milian, M. (Eds.). Metalinguistic activity in learning to write. Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. pp. 145–167.

[17] Teng, F., 2019. The role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in mediating university EFL learners’ writing performance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. 14(5), 436–450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1615493

[18] Sumarno, W.K., Kusumaningrum, W.R., Nurhayati, E., 2021. The effects of knowledge and regulation of cognition on the students’ writing skills in a metacognitive process-oriented writing instruction. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 18(1). Available from: https://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/download/2844/987

[19] Dong, R., Fu, D., Zhou, X., et al., 2019. Writing instruction in China: challenges and efforts. International Journal of Information and Education Technology. 9(10), 715–723. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2019.9.10.1292

[20] Graham, S., 2006. Strategy Instruction and the Teaching of Writing: A Meta-Analysis. In: MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S., Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). Handbook of Writing Research. The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA. pp. 187–207. Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-07885-013

[21] Richey, R.C., Klein, J.D., 2014. Design and development research. Routledge eBooks. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203826034

[22] Chaijaroen, S., 2016. Instructional Design: Principles and Theories to Practices. Pen Printing Company Limited: Khon Kaen, Thailand.

[23] Rong, W., 2013. The Main Problems of China's Writing Teaching and Their Solution Paths. Curriculum, Materials-Pedagogy. 11, 62.

[24] Hannafin, M., Land, S., Oliver, K., 1999. Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. 2, 115–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603784-12

[25] Klausmeier, H.J., 1985. Educational psychology, 5th ed. Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA.

[26] Mayer, R.E., 1996. Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review. 8(4), 357–371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01463939

[27] Sweller, J., 1994. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction. 4(4), 295–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5

[28] Moritz, S., Lysaker, P.H., 2018. Metacognition – what did James H. Flavell really say and the implications for the conceptualization and design of metacognitive interventions. Schizophrenia Research. 201, 20–26.

[29] Laurillard, D., 2002. Design tools for e-learning. Ascilite. 3–4.

[30] Brown, L., 2014. Constructivist learning environments and defining the online learning community. Imanager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 9(4), 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.9.4.2704

[31] Brown, A.L., Campione, J.C., 1996. Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In: Schauble, L., Glaser, R. (Eds.). Innovations in learning: New environments for education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: Mahwah, NJ, USA. pp. 289–325. Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-97115-011

[32] Belland, B.R., 2014. Scaffolding: Definition, Current Debates, and Future Directions. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., et al. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany. pp. 505–518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_39

[33] Rogoff, B., 1990. Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

Downloads

How to Cite

Qu, X., & Chaijaroen, S. (2025). Theoretical Retrospectives for Developing a Constructivist Learning Environment Model to Enhance Metacognitive Regulation in Authentic Writing. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(3), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i3.8452

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 3 (March 2025): In Progress

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Xi Qu, Sumalee Chaijaroen

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.