Output-prompting feedback outperforms input-providing and no-feedback conditions on both immediate and delayed grammar posttests in young EFL learners¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr1–r2·q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · 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? One-way ANOVA showed significant between-group differences on the immediate posttest (F(2, 51) = 30.067, p = .000) and delayed posttest (F(2, 51) = 52.585, p = .000), with the output-prompting group scoring highest on both. → Mousavi 2018
q2 i? Groups were homogeneous at pretest (F(2, 51) = .200, p = .819), so posttest differences are attributable to treatment. → Mousavi 2018 (2)
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
One-way ANOVA compared gains across the input-providing, output-prompting and control groups (18 learners each). Post-hoc analysis showed both experimental groups beat the control, but "the performance of output -prompting group is witnessed to be better than the other two groups on both immediate and delayed posttests". No effect size is printed for the between-group contrast.
"in immediate posttest p-value is .000 ≤ 0.05, and it can be said that the groups are different from each other after treatment, F (2, 51) = .30.06, p = .000."
Mousavi 2018 (2)¶
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 · r2
The same one-way ANOVA run on pretest scores showed no significant difference among the three groups before treatment, supporting group comparability at baseline. Descriptive pretest means were 6.88, 6.66 and 6.55.
"since the p-value is .819 ≥ 0.05, it can be said that the groups are homogeneous before treatment, F (2, 51) = .200, p = .819"
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
- Young EFL learners receiving input-providing corrective feedback improve significantly in grammar from pretest to immediate and delayed posttests, with gains retained — related
- Uptake rates do not differ significantly between input-providing and output-prompting feedback groups — related
- Corrective feedback on second-language errors has a significant effect on L2 development that is maintained on delayed tests — a broader claim this one bears on
- All three groups benefited from the instructional intervention, with both experimental groups benefiting the most — related
- Within the output-producing group, high-feedback receivers significantly outperformed both low-feedback receivers and the input-only control group — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.