CF treatment improved regular past tense performance on both GJT and EIT with large effects¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Across all three feedback groups, learners improved GJT scores for regular past tense (partial η² = .31) and EIT scores (partial η² = .17) from pretest to posttests. → 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 92 learners in three CF groups on regular past tense. The article reports large effect sizes for GJT (partial η² = .31) and EIT (partial η² = .17), concluding "the treatment was effective in learning regular past tense forms."

"Repeated measures ANOVAs showed that the participants improved their GJT and EIT scores after the treatment, F (2, 182) = 40.1, p = .00, partial η² = .31, and F (2, 182) = 18.4, p = .00, partial η² = .17, respectively."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — related
• Pretest scores significantly predict posttest scores across CF types and outcome measures — related
• Procedural memory predicts immediate regular-past-tense UGJT posttest scores, controlling for pretest, only under metalinguistic prompts — a narrower finding that bears on this claim