For the sample as a whole, elaborative feedback and knowledge of response feedback showed no significant difference in enhancing online L2 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 After controlling for pre-test reading comprehension, post-test scores did not differ significantly between the elaborative feedback group and the knowledge of response feedback group. → 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

Quasi-experiment with 92 participants (47 Group 1, 45 Group 2) completing both tests; ANCOVA controlling for pre-test. "no significant difference in mean scores on the post-test". The article reports a small effect size, partial eta squared = .015, with 1.5% 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 1 (M=7.09, SD=2.17) and Group 2 (M=6.44, SD=2.38), F(1, 89)=1.39, p= .241."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• For high-proficiency L2 readers, feedback type had no significant effect on online reading comprehension — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• AI multimodal feedback produces post-test learning gains equivalent to educator feedback after controlling for pre-test performance — related
• Non-layered AI feedback produced significantly higher post-test performance than layered AI feedback after controlling for pre-test — related
• The Opener produced no difference on pre/post test scores across the whole project — related