Uptake rates do not differ significantly between input-providing and output-prompting feedback groups¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Despite a descriptive discrepancy (62.4% vs 61.8%), the Chi-square comparison of the two experimental groups' uptake rates was not significant (χ2=0.1; df=1; p=0.75). → 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 · r1

Chi-square analysis of transcribed uptake moves from the audio-recorded treatment sessions compared the input-providing group (68 of 110 errors followed by uptake) with the output-prompting group (83 of 133). The article reports no significant difference; equivalence was not tested and no effect size is printed.

"When the two experimental groups were compared, despite the observable discrepancy between the uptake rates, Chi -square analysis did not provide any significant difference between them (χ2=0.1; df =1; p value=0.75, p> 0.05)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — related
• Output-prompting feedback outperforms input-providing and no-feedback conditions on both immediate and delayed grammar posttests in young EFL learners — related