Grammar-oriented uptake rates are significantly higher in input-providing and output-prompting feedback classes than in a no-feedback class among young EFL learners¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Uptake following errors occurred significantly more often in the input-providing and output-prompting groups than in the no-feedback group (χ2=17.82; df=2; p=0.0001). → Mousavi 2018

Evidence¶

Mousavi 2018¶

Mousavi, K., Alavinia, P., & Gholami, J. (2018). Input Providing vs. Output-Prompting Negotiation Strategies in Learning Grammar among Young EFL Learners. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 497-512. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11234a

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Audio-recorded classroom interaction from 10 treatment sessions was transcribed and uptake moves coded (inter-rater reliability 91.6%). Uptake was 61.8% in the input-providing group, 62.4% in the output-prompting group, and 37% in the no-feedback group; the article reports "a significant difference among group". No effect size is printed.

"The results of Chi -square analysis on the distribution of uptake moves and no uptake moves revealed th at there is a significant difference among group ( χ2=17.82; df =2; p value=0.0001, p< 0.05)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Uptake rates do not differ significantly between input-providing and output-prompting feedback groups — related
• Output-prompting feedback outperforms input-providing and no-feedback conditions on both immediate and delayed grammar posttests in young EFL learners — 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
• All three groups benefited from the instructional intervention, with both experimental groups benefiting the most — related
• Absence of any of the three model components slows EFL language development — related