All three groups benefited from the instructional intervention, with both experimental groups benefiting the most¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr?·q3
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Control-group learners also gained, but learners receiving recasts or prompts gained the most. → Ahlem Ammar and Nina Spada 2006
Evidence¶
Ahlem Ammar and Nina Spada 2006¶
Ahlem Ammar and Nina Spada. (2006). ONE SIZE FITS ALL?: Recasts, Prompts, and L2 Learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Volume 28, Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060268
q3 · i? · causal · r?
Quasi-experimental study with recast, prompt, and control groups tested before, immediately after, and 4 weeks after a 4-week intervention. The article reports "All three groups benefited from the instructional intervention," with the experimental groups benefiting most. No effect size is printed in the available text.
"All three groups benefited from the instructional intervention, with both experimental groups benefiting the most."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Corrective feedback on second-language errors has a significant effect on L2 development that is maintained on delayed tests — a broader claim this one bears on
- The literature is supportive of recasts, but recast effectiveness varies with the language area and learner knowledge, focus, and aptitudes — related
- High-proficiency L2 learners benefited equally from prompts and recasts — related
- Low-proficiency L2 learners benefited significantly more from prompts than from recasts — related
- All four written CF types, including metalinguistic code CF, outperformed the control group on the delayed posttest of implicit L2 knowledge. — related
- Metalinguistic feedback and recasts, but not clarification requests, significantly improve Iranian EFL learners' wh-question performance on an immediate post-test — related
- Prompts were overall more effective than recasts as corrective feedback for L2 grammar learning — related
- Child EFL learners receiving recasts in task-based lessons improve their production of third person singular -s from pretest to posttest, in a study with no no-recast comparison group — related
- AI-mediated language instruction produces significantly greater English learning achievement gains than traditional instruction among EFL learners — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
all-groups-benefited-experimental-most |
title |
All three groups benefited from the instructional intervention, with both experimental groups benefiting the most |
description |
All three groups benefited from the instructional intervention, with both experimental groups benefiting the most |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2006 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-15 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ahlem-ammar-and-nina-spada-2006 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.