Intensive recasts and delayed explicit/metalinguistic feedback are equally effective: no significant difference between the two feedback types on oral accuracy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The two experimental feedback groups did not differ significantly in oral accuracy (Tukey HSD p = .994). → Farahman Farrokhi 2012

Evidence¶

Farahman Farrokhi 2012¶

Farahman Farrokhi, Mohammad Hassan Chehrazad. (2012). The Effects of Planned Focus on Form on Iranian EFL Learners' Oral Accuracy. World Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n1p70

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Tukey HSD test on session 6 oral accuracy comparing the recast group and the delayed explicit/metalinguistic group; the mean difference between the two experimental groups was not statistically significant ("p-value = .994").

"Since p-value = .994 > =0.05, the second hypothesis of the study, the existence of the significant differences between the two experimental groups, was rejected"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Delayed explicit and metalinguistic feedback outperforms no feedback on oral accuracy in the final session (p = .044) — related
• Metalinguistic feedback outperforms recasts on the immediate post-test, but the two do not differ significantly on the delayed post-test — reports the opposite
• Prompts were overall more effective than recasts as corrective feedback for L2 grammar learning — related
• Explicit metalinguistic feedback outperforms recasts on the delayed oral imitation posttest measuring implicit knowledge — reports the opposite
• Explicit metalinguistic feedback outperforms recasts on the delayed grammaticality judgment posttest — related