Cover not available
Part of
Doing SLA Research with Implications for the Classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability
Edited by Robert M. DeKeyser and Goretti Prieto Botana
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 52] 2019
► pp. 31–54

Chapter 3
Methodological strengths, challenges, and joys of classroom-based quasi-experimental research

Metacognitive instruction and corrective feedback

| Universidad Andres Bello
| Michigan State University
This chapter reports on a classroom-based quasi-experimental study by focusing on its methodological aspects. The study’s objectives were twofold: (1) to examine the effect of metacognitive instruction (MI) in which learners were instructed about the benefits of receiving corrective feedback (CF), and (2) to compare the effects of two CF types – input-providing vs. output-prompting CF. Eighty-three EFL learners from four intact classes at a private university in Chile were assigned to one of four conditions: MI plus input-providing CF, input-providing CF only, MI plus output-prompting CF, and output-prompting CF only. The results showed that MI helped learners benefit from CF. Focusing on the ecological validity, we argue that providing learners with interventions that were seamlessly deployed in genuine classroom contexts permitted the examination of authentic classroom instruction with minimal disturbance, thereby allowing the observation of the effects of MI and CF without the potentially confounding variables of researcher intrusion and unfamiliar data collection context.
Keywords: classroom research, ecological validity, metacognitive instruction, corrective feedback, self-regulation
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Corrective feedback
    • Metacognitive instruction
  • Empirical study
    • Participants
    • Overall design
    • Intervention
      • Target structures
      • Activities
      • Corrective feedback
    • Metacognitive instruction
    • Developmental tests
    • Results and discussion
  • Pedagogical implications
    • Corrective feedback
      • Amount and types of feedback
      • Training in corrective feedback
    • Metacognitive instruction
  • Methodological take-away points
    • Ecological validity
    • Challenges and joys of classroom research
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 7 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.52.03sat
References (71)
References
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanca, M. J., Arnau, J., López-Montiel, D., Bono, R., & Bendayan, R. (2013). Skewness and kurtosis in real data samples. Methodology, 9, 78–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, H., Jeon, S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Recasts as repetitions: Learners’ interpretations of native speaker responses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 209–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(1), 37–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(s1), 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Sterling, S. (2017). Ethics in ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 577–596). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60(3), 222–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2005). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 55(1), 27–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamiya, N., & Loewen, S. (2013). The influence of academic articles on an ESL teacher’s stated beliefs. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 205–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karimi, M. N. (2015). L2 multiple-documents comprehension: Exploring the contributions of L1 reading ability and strategic processing. System, 52, 14–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keselman, H., Huberty, C., Lix, L., Olejnik, S., Cribbie, R., Donahue, B., Levine, J. (1998). Statistical practices of educational researchers: An analysis of their ANOVA, MANOVA, and ANCOVA analyses. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 350–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 373–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. (2016). From language learner to language learning researcher. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Becoming and being an applied linguist (pp. 175–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2012). The role of feedback. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 24–40). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., Erlam, R., & Ellis, R. (2009). The incidental acquisition of third person-s as implicit and explicit knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 262–280). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 361–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2016). An A-Z of applied linguistics research methods. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): An overview. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The handbook of instructed second language scquisition (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). State-of-the-art article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). State-of-the-art article: Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M., McCarten, J., & Sandiford, H. (2008). Touchstone 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2015). Perceived benefits and challenges with the use of collaborative tasks in EFL contexts. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 225–245). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2016). Thai EFL learners’ interaction during collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 185–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (Eds.) (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Brown, D. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31(2), 267–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2011). Constitution of form-orientation: Contributions of context and explicit knowledge to learning from recasts. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
(2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68(2), 507–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019-a). Do teachers care about research? The research-pedagogy dialogue. ELT Journal, 73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019-b). Towards evidence-based second language pedagogy. In M. Sato & S. Loewen (Eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 593–610). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (2015). SLA research and L2 pedagogy: Misapplications and questions of relevance. Language Teaching, 48(1), 69–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT. Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research.Google Scholar
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 674–701. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Underwood, P. R. (2012). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction of English grammar under national curriculum reforms: A Theory of Planned Behaviour perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 911–925. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S. (2015). Learner variables in second language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis. Language Learning, 65(2), 390–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vásquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veenman, M. V. (2011). Learning to self-monitor and self-regulate. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 197–218). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenden, A. L. (1987). Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learners. Language Learning, 37(4), 573–597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62(4), 1134–1169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L. J., & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. (1985). Grammars in search of input and intake. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 329–344). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Cited by (20)

Cited by 20 other publications

Alhmoud, Zeina
2024. More than tough luck. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
He, Bailing & Ferran Suñer Munoz
2024. Enhancing Interventional Studies Through Mixed-Methods Research in Language Education. In Design and Validation of Research Tools and Methodologies [Advances in Library and Information Science, ], ► pp. 349 ff. DOI logo
Garces, Sebastian, Camilo Vieira, Guity Ravai & Alejandra J. Magana
2023. Engaging students in active exploration of programming worked examples. Education and Information Technologies 28:3 ► pp. 2869 ff. DOI logo
Gerits, Hedwig & Kris Van den Branden
2023. The acquisition of L2 Hungariangrammar rules and the implicit-explicit debate. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 174:2 ► pp. 202 ff. DOI logo
Gyllstad, Henrik, Pia Sundqvist, Erica Sandlund & Marie Källkvist
2023. Effects of Word Definitions on Meaning Recall: A Multisite Intervention in Language‐Diverse Second Language English Classrooms. Language Learning 73:2 ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo
Tabari, Mahmoud Abdi, Masatoshi Sato & Yizhou Wang
2023. Engagement with written corrective feedback: Examination of feedback types and think-aloud protocol as pedagogical interventions. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Lee, Yow-jyy Joyce & Yeu-Ting Liu
2022. Promoting Oral Presentation Skills Through Drama-Based Tasks with an Authentic Audience: A Longitudinal Study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 31:3 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi & Shawn Loewen
2022. The Research–Practice Dialogue in Second Language Learning and Teaching: Past, Present, and Future. The Modern Language Journal 106:3 ► pp. 509 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi & Neomy Storch
2022. Context matters: Learner beliefs and interactional behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL context. Language Teaching Research 26:5 ► pp. 919 ff. DOI logo
SPADA, NINA & PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN
2022. In it Together: Teachers, Researchers, and Classroom SLA. The Modern Language Journal 106:3 ► pp. 635 ff. DOI logo
Moranski, Kara & Nicole Ziegler
2021. A Case for Multisite Second Language Acquisition Research: Challenges, Risks, and Rewards. Language Learning 71:1 ► pp. 204 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi
2021. Generating a Roadmap for Possible Selves via a Vision Intervention: Alignment of Second Language Motivation and Classroom Behavior. TESOL Quarterly 55:2 ► pp. 427 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi
2022. Mindsets and language-related problem-solving behaviors during interaction in the classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 16:3 ► pp. 265 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi
2022. Chapter 4. Mixed methods research in ISLA. In Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research Methods [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3], ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi
2022. Learner attitudes and attention to form in peer interaction: A proposal to replicate Adams et al. (2011) and Philp et al. (2010). Language Teaching 55:3 ► pp. 407 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi
2023. Navigating the research–practice relationship: Professional goals and constraints. Language Teaching ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi & Kata Csizér
2021. Introduction: Combining learner psychology and ISLA research: Intersections in the classroom. Language Teaching Research 25:6 ► pp. 839 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi & Isidora Angulo
2020. Chapter 2. The role of L1 use by high-proficiency learners in L2 vocabulary development. In Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 55], ► pp. 42 ff. DOI logo
Meurers, Detmar, Kordula De Kuthy, Florian Nuxoll, Björn Rudzewitz & Ramon Ziai
2019. Scaling Up Intervention Studies to Investigate Real-Life Foreign Language Learning in School. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 39 ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi & Kim McDonough
2019. PRACTICE IS IMPORTANT BUT HOW ABOUT ITS QUALITY?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41:5 ► pp. 999 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.