Input-based FFI is more effective than output-based FFI for inter-phrasal grammatical features, with a medium-sized difference¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 At the inter-phrasal level, input-based instruction yielded a larger mean effect size than output-based instruction (difference of .72, a medium effect). → Schenck 2024

Evidence¶

Schenck 2024¶

Schenck, A. (2024). Learning How to Use Input-Based and Output-Based Form-Focused Instruction: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Persian EFL Learners. Journal of Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, 30. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1457419

q2 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r1

Collation of effect sizes across 18 Persian-L1 studies; Table 2 reports inter-phrasal input mean 3.5031 (n=12) vs output 2.7787 (n=9). The article calls the .72 difference "a medium difference in effect".

"At the inter-phrasal level, input-based instruction had a much larger impact than its output-based counterpart, yielding a difference in effect size of .72."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Input-based FFI is only slightly more effective than output-based FFI for intra-phrasal grammatical features in Persian EFL learners — related
• Output-based FFI was more effective than input-based FFI for complex clausal grammatical features, a difference the article characterizes as a large effect — related
• Grammatical complexity and L2 proficiency interact: complex features benefit more from input at low proficiency, while simple features benefit more from output at high proficiency — related
• Input-based FFI was more effective than output-based FFI at both beginner and intermediate proficiency levels, and both types showed larger effects for intermediate learners — related
• L1 transfer may moderate FFI effectiveness: features similar to Persian benefit more from input, while disparate features benefit more from output — related