Metacognitive Instruction and Oral Corrective Feedback: Impacts on Metacognitive Awareness and Speaking Accuracy in Learners of English as a Foreign Language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the impact of metacognitive oral corrective feedback instruction on second-language adult learners’ metacognitive awareness of oral corrective feedback, and their spoken grammatical accuracy of definite and indefinite articles. In this exploratory experimental study, 33 Korean adult learners of English were randomly distributed into one of the following two groups: 1) receiving metacognitive instruction, or 2) not receiving metacognitive instruction. Both groups were given the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory for Oral Corrective Feedback pre- and post-instruction to examine the effectiveness of the intervention on increasing learners’ metacognitive awareness of oral corrective feedback. Learners were also given a pre- and post-test to evaluate changes in their spoken grammatical accuracy of the target grammar. Paired-sample t -test results showed that both groups increased their metacognitive awareness of oral corrective feedback as well as their spoken grammatical accuracy when using definite and indefinite articles. Analysis of variance test results showed no significant difference in the increase in metacognitive awareness and spoken grammatical accuracy between groups. The results suggest that oral corrective feedback alone may have enhanced the participants’ metacognitive awareness of oral corrective feedback. However, since both groups had heightened metacognitive awareness of oral corrective feedback, the results are inconclusive as to whether higher metacognitive awareness of oral corrective feedback significantly impacts learners’ spoken grammatical accuracy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".