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

| 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
Published online: 07 March 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.52.03sat
References

References

Ammar, A., & Spada, N.
(2006) One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K.
(1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(1), 37–53.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2001) Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(s1), 1–46.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P.
(1998) A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 1–23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L.
(2005) Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575–611.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A.
(2013) The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H.
(2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, M. N.
(2015) L2 multiple-documents comprehension: Exploring the contributions of L1 reading ability and strategic processing. System, 52, 14–25.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 373–396.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
(2018) State-of-the-art article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329.Google Scholar
Lyster, R.
(2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H.
(2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 1–18.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A.
(2006) Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.CrossrefGoogle 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.
(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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
(2014) How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.
(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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S.
(2015) Learner variables in second language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis. Language Learning, 65(2), 390–416.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vásquez, C., & Harvey, J.
(2010) Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421–443.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wenden, A. L.
(1987) Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learners. Language Learning, 37(4), 573–597.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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

Cited by 6 other publications

Moranski, Kara & Nicole Ziegler
2021. A Case for Multisite Second Language Acquisition Research: Challenges, Risks, and Rewards. Language Learning 71:1 ► pp. 204 ff. Crossref logo
Sato, Masatoshi
2020. Generating a Roadmap for Possible Selves via a Vision Intervention: Alignment of Second Language Motivation and Classroom Behavior. TESOL Quarterly Crossref logo
Sato, Masatoshi
2020. Learner attitudes and attention to form in peer interaction: A proposal to replicate Adams et al. (2011) and Philp et al. (2010). Language Teaching ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Sato, Masatoshi
2021. Mindsets and language-related problem-solving behaviors during interaction in the classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Sato, Masatoshi & Isidora Angulo
2020.  In Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 55], ► pp. 42 ff. Crossref logo
Sato, Masatoshi & Neomy Storch
2020. Context matters: Learner beliefs and interactional behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL context. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882092358 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 april 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.