Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
There is a lack of strong empirical evidence directly comparing the effects of directive and metacognitive feedback on learning.
“While both approaches have clear theoretical advantages, their comparative effects on engagement, confidence, and quality of work remain underexplored.”
From Directive, metacognitive, or a blend of both? A comparison of AI-generated feedback types on student engagement, confidence, and outcomes (2026) · cites this paper as Sato & Loewen, 2018
The findings are consistent with evidence that the impact of feedback depends on its informational content and on learners' opportunities to understand and use it.
“The findings are consistent with evidence that the impact of feedback depends on its informational content and on learners' opportunities to understand and use it [28], [38]-[40].”
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · see citing works
Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry
Flavell, J. H. (1979) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906 · Cited by 11,282 · see citing works
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263197001034 · Cited by 2,259 · see citing works
Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x · Cited by 1,085 · see citing works
The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis
Li, S. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x · Cited by 941 · see citing works
ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA: A Meta-Analysis
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109990520 · Cited by 838 · see citing works
INCIDENTAL FOCUS ON FORM AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
Loewen, S. (2005) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263105050163 · Cited by 381 · see citing works
Self-citationInteraction and instructed second language acquisition
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444818000125 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
Self-citationResponses to Recasts: Repetitions, Primed Production, and Linguistic Development
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00393.x · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Explicit Learning in the L2 Classroom
Leow, R. P. (2015) · doi:10.4324/9781315887074 · Cited by 255 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rassaei, E. (2019) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.03.004 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Torres, J. (2022) · Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · doi:10.14434/josotl.v22i1.31232 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Alsaiari, O., Baghaei, N., Lodge, J. M., Noroozi, O., Gašević, D., Boden, M., & Khosravi, H. (2026) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100553 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Chen, S., & Lou, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2026.1727544 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Junaidi, M., Padmadewi, N. N., Utami, I. G. A. L. P., & Suarcaya, P. (2026) · Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE) · doi:10.37251/jee.v7i3.3428
“The findings are consistent with evidence that the impact of feedback depends on its informational content and on learners' opportunities to understand and use it [28], [38]-[40].”
- 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
- green
- americanae.aecid.es
- Licence
- 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