Revised drafts contained more Editor-identified grammar and style errors than first drafts, despite significant pre-post change¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 The pre-Editor to post-Editor comparison was statistically significant with a moderate effect size of .524, and on average Editor found more mistakes in the second draft than the first across feedback groups. → Gulley 2012

Evidence¶

Gulley 2012¶

Gulley, B. (2012). Feedback on developmental writing students' first drafts. Journal of Developmental Education, 36(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1035676

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Mixed design ANCOVA on Editor program error counts for pre- and postfeedback drafts; the article reports "On average the Editor program found more mistakes in the second (post) draft than the first (pre) draft" across all groups.

"The within subjects comparison for pre-Editor scores and post-Editor scores indicated statistically significant results with F = 4.207, p < .044. This comparison had a moderate effect size of .524."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Syntax — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Feedback delivery method made no statistically significant difference in grammar-and-style error counts measured by the Editor program — related
• Revised drafts were significantly longer than first drafts, with significant effects of COMPASS score and treatment condition on word count — related