Cited by 195EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLinguistics and Language Analysis

Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets

Open access
Sato, Masatoshi, Loewen, Shawn·2018·Language Learning

Abstract

This study explored the impact of metacognitive instruction provided in conjunction with corrective feedback, investigating the moderating effects of two types of implicit corrective feedback (input‐providing conversational recasts vs. output‐prompting clarification requests) that targeted English third‐person singular –s and possessive determiners his/her. Adult English as a foreign language learners from intact classes (N = 83) were assigned to four conditions: metacognitive instruction plus input‐providing recasts, input‐providing recasts only, metacognitive instruction plus output‐prompting clarification requests, and output‐prompting clarification requests only. Metacognitive instruction enhanced the effect of conversational recasts that otherwise had minimal impact but had no added benefit for clarification requests that supported language development without metacognitive instruction. Although the effect of metacognitive instruction was not moderated by linguistic structure, effectiveness of corrective feedback depended on linguistic target. Although corrective feedback in general impacted third‐person singular –s more, the comparison of feedback types showed that the advantageous effect of clarification requests was found only for possessive determiners, the more salient and communicatively valuable structure. Open Practices This article has been awarded an Open Materials badge. All materials are publicly accessible via the IRIS Repository at https://www.iris-database…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/lang.12283

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sato, M., & Loewen, S.
Affiliations
Universidad Andrés Bello (CL)
Corresponding author
Sato, Masatoshi
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-02-20
Volume
68
Issue
2
Pages
507-545
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
OpenAlex
W2790271182
Cited by
195
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 1
FWCI
167.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Language Learning (publishedVersion)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Repositorio Institucional Académico , Sistema de Bibliotecas Universidad Andrés Bello (UNAB) (Universidad Andrés Bello (UNAB)) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Fondo National de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnólogico grant from the Ministry of Education of Chile (1160838)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
metacognitive instruction, corrective feedback, clarification requests, English as a foreign language, third person singular -s, possessive determiners, second language acquisition, adult learners

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review