Chapter published in: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
Methodological strengths, challenges, and joys of classroom-based quasi-experimental research
Metacognitive instruction and corrective feedback
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
Published online: 07 March 2019
Ammar, A., & Spada, N.
Blanca, M. J., Arnau, J., López-Montiel, D., Bono, R., & Bendayan, R.
Carpenter, H., Jeon, S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A.
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R.
Flavell, J. H.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L.
Gass, S., & Sterling, S.
Goh, C., & Taib, Y.
Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R.
Goo, J., & Mackey, A.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H.
Kamiya, N., & Loewen, S.
Karimi, M. N.
Keselman, H., Huberty, C., Lix, L., Olejnik, S., Cribbie, R., Donahue, B., Levine, J.
Loewen, S., Erlam, R., & Ellis, R.
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T.
Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M.
McCarthy, M., McCarten, J., & Sandiford, H.
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & De Vleeschauwer, J.
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N.
Plonsky, L., & Brown, D.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
Russell, J., & Spada, N.
Sato, M., & Loewen, S.
in press-a). Do teachers care about research? The research-pedagogy dialogue. ELT Journal, 73.
in press-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
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T.
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R.
Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M.
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J.
Underwood, P. R.
Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S.
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H.
Vásquez, C., & Harvey, J.
Veenman, M. V.
Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P.
Wenden, A. L.
Zhang, L. J., & Rahimi, M.
Cited by 7 other publications
Moranski, Kara & Nicole Ziegler
Sato, Masatoshi & Isidora Angulo
Sato, Masatoshi & Kata Csizér
Sato, Masatoshi & Neomy Storch
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 2021. 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.