Claims

Input-based FFI is only slightly more effective than output-based FFI for intra-phrasal grammatical features in Persian EFL learners

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

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? For intra-phrasal features (e.g., verb tenses, modals), input-based FFI showed a slightly larger mean effect size than output-based FFI (difference of .06). → 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 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1

Meta-analysis of Persian-L1 EFL studies; Table 2 reports intra-phrasal input mean 3.7975 (n=5) vs output mean 3.7405 (n=6). The article reports input-based FFI was only slightly more effective, "(a difference in effect size of .06)".

"Input-based FFI was only slightly more effective when used with intra-phrasal grammatical features (a difference in effect size of .06)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.