Learners in all three corrective-feedback groups improve irregular past tense performance on both GJT and EIT from pretest to posttests, a within-group gain that does not separate the feedback types¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2·i3large
Currency · newest study 2023 · 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.
q2 i3 All three feedback groups improved GJT scores for irregular past tense (partial η² = .26) and EIT scores (partial η² = .21) after treatment. → Yusuke Sato 2023
Evidence¶
Yusuke Sato 2023¶
Yusuke Sato. (2023). Interactions Among Declarative and Procedural Memory Systems, Different Linguistic Structures, and the Efficacy of Different Corrective Feedback Types. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.52598/jpll/5/1/4
q2 · i3 · causal · r2
Repeated measures ANOVA over pretest, immediate and delayed posttests for the same 92 learners on irregular past tense. The article states "The large effect sizes showed that the three types of CF were beneficial for learning irregular past tense forms."
"A repeated measures ANOVA confirmed that all the groups improved their GJT and EIT scores after they received the treatment, F (2, 182) = 32.0, p = .00, partial η² = .26; and F (2, 182) = 24.2, p = .00, partial η² = .21, respectively."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Corrective feedback on second-language errors has a significant effect on L2 development that is maintained on delayed tests — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- CF treatment improved regular past tense performance on both GJT and EIT with large effects — related
- Pretest scores significantly predict posttest scores across CF types and outcome measures — related
- No group differences on immediate posttests for either feedback type on either measure — related
- Procedural memory shows no association with irregular past tense learning under any CF type — related
- Corrective feedback treatment and time interact significantly in shaping wh-question learning gains across the three testing periods — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
cf-treatment-improves-irregular-past-tense-gjt-eit |
title |
Learners in all three corrective-feedback groups improve irregular past tense performance on both GJT and EIT from pretest to posttests, a within-group gain that does not separate the feedback types |
description |
Learners in all three corrective-feedback groups improve irregular past tense performance on both GJT and EIT from pretest to posttests, a within-group gain that does not separate the feedback types |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2023 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-28 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — yusuke-sato-2023 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.