One month of constructive-feedback remedial teaching cut experimental-group writing errors by 52% to 78% per student¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? After a month of remedial teaching with CFB, individual students' error percentages decreased, with the highest improvement at 78% and the lowest at 52%. → Gulzar et al. 2013

Evidence¶

Gulzar et al. 2013¶

Malik Ajmal Gulzar, Sartaj Fakhar Jilani & Choudhary Zahid Javid. (2013). Constructive Feedback: An Effective Constituent for Eradicating Impediments in Writing Skills. English Language Teaching, 6(8). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n8p21

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Pre/post-test error counts for the 15-student experimental group (Table 6) after four weeks of CFB-based teaching; the article reports the highest improvement "was 78% and the lowest percentage was 52%". These are descriptive percentages; no inferential statistic or effect size is printed.

"After a month of remedial teaching, the highest improvement in percentage was 78% and the lowest percentage was 52%."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Constructive feedback through an error analysis system improves EFL students' writing more than traditional feedback methods — a broader claim this one bears on
• Traditional feedback methods produced only minor writing-error improvement in the control group — reports the opposite
• Mother-tongue interference errors resist full correction even under constructive feedback — related
• After 8 weeks, the AWT experimental group scored significantly higher than the control group on all five writing criteria, with lower error count — related
• The control group's writing skills also improved significantly over the 8 weeks under traditional instruction — related