PI+EI outperformed PBI+EI on the aural interpretation task at the immediate posttest, but the advantage did not persist at the delayed posttest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? At immediate posttest, the PI+EI group scored significantly higher than the PBI+EI group on the aural interpretation task (Mdiff = 2.16, p < .001), but at delayed posttest all instructional groups performed equally well. → Adem Soruç 2017

Evidence¶

Adem Soruç 2017¶

Adem Soruç, Jingjing Qin, YouJin Kim. (2017). Comparing the Effectiveness of Processing Instruction and Production-Based Instruction on L2 Grammar Learning: The Role of Explicit Information. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 34(2), 49–70. http://dx.doi.org/1018806/tesl.v34i2.1262

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons on immediate-posttest aural interpretation scores. The article reports "the PI+EI group outperformed the PBI+EI group, M diff = 2.16, p < .001" and that PBI-EI also beat PBI+EI (Mdiff = 1.85, p < .05). No effect size is printed for these contrasts.

"Bonferroni adjustment analysis was run for the immediate posttest, which revealed that the PI+EI group outperformed the PBI+EI group, M diff = 2.16, p < .001. In addition, the PBI-EI group also performed better than the PBI+EI group, Mdiff = 1.85, p < .05."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Explicit information mediated PI's superiority over PBI on interpretation: PI-EI and PBI-EI performed equally, so the PI+EI advantage was attributed to EI, not structured input alone — related
• Explicit information showed no within-instruction effect: PI+EI equalled PI-EI and PBI+EI equalled PBI-EI on both tasks over time — related
• All four instructional groups (PI and PBI, with and without EI) outperformed the control group on the aural interpretation task at immediate and delayed posttests — related