For high-proficiency L2 readers, feedback type had no significant effect on online reading comprehension¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 The high-proficiency sub-groups receiving elaborative versus knowledge of response feedback did not differ significantly on the post-test after controlling for the pre-test. → Andy Bown 2017

Evidence¶

Andy Bown 2017¶

Andy Bown. (2017). Elaborative Feedback to Enhance Online Second Language Reading Comprehension. English Language Teaching, 10(12). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n12p164

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Second ANCOVA comparing high-proficiency sub-groups (Group 1H, n=19; Group 2H, n=15) formed from the top third of pre-test scores. "no significant difference in mean scores on the post-test". The article reports a small effect size, partial eta squared = .017, with 1.7% of post-test variance accounted for by treatment condition.

"The results of the ANCOV A indicated that, after contro lling for performance on the pre-test, there was no significant difference in mean scores on the post-test between Group 1H ( M=8.68, SD=1.77) and Group 2H (M=8.20, SD=2.08), F(1, 31)=.52, p= .476."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• For the sample as a whole, elaborative feedback and knowledge of response feedback showed no significant difference in enhancing online L2 reading comprehension — a broader claim this one bears on
• Reading proficiency level moderates incidental vocabulary gains: higher-proficiency readers gained more, consistent with i+1 — related
• The review reports that readers' proficiency, not the kind of schemata activated, moderates the benefit of pre-reading approaches — related