Analogy-based corrective feedback produced higher grammar posttest scores than metalinguistic feedback among young elementary EFL learners¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? After 8 treatment sessions, the analogy-based CF group significantly outperformed the metalinguistic feedback group on the grammar posttest (mean difference 1.200, p = .016). → Masjedi 2019

Evidence¶

Masjedi 2019¶

Masjedi, H., & Tabatabaei, S. P. (2019). Analogy-based CF or Metalinguistic Feedback: Which One Is Better in EFL Classrooms? International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 513-528. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12331a

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Post hoc multiple comparisons following a significant ANOVA on posttest grammar scores of 45 young EFL learners in three groups; the printed mean difference between analogy-based and metalinguistic groups was "1.200*" with Sig. .016, significant at the 0.05 level.

"Moreover the mean difference between the metalinguistic and analogy -based was significant (P = 0.016≤.05). It revealed that analogy -based group outperformed the other groups."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Syntax — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Both feedback conditions outperformed the no-feedback control group on grammar posttest scores — related
• Posttest grammar scores differed significantly among the three feedback groups (omnibus ANOVA) — related
• 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
• Metalinguistic feedback's gains on wh-question performance decline over a ten-day delay while recast gains hold, leaving the two no different — related
• Error correction feedback significantly improves collocation competence of EFL learners at intermediate and advanced levels but not at the elementary level — related