Accuracy gains from unfocused WCF during revision do not extend to a new piece of writing after a one-month interval at the elementary level¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? On a new posttest writing task produced after a four-week interval without feedback, the WCF group and control group showed no statistically significant difference in grammatical accuracy. → Khanlarzadeh and Nemati 2016

Evidence¶

Khanlarzadeh and Nemati 2016¶

Mobin Khanlarzadeh, Majid Nemati. (2016). The effect of written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy of EFL students: An improvement over previous unfocused designs. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 4(2). https://www.urmia.ac.ir/ijltr

q2 · i? · causal · r1

One-way between-subjects ANOVA comparing the two intact classes (experimental n = 16, control n = 17) on pretest and posttest scores. The study reports the groups were "not significantly different" at the end of the course; equivalence was not tested and no effect size was printed.

"the two groups were not significantly different with respect to their grammatical accuracy at the beginning (F = .26, p = .61) and at the end of the course (F = .41, p = .53)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Direct unfocused WCF leads elementary EFL students to significantly outperform a no-feedback control group when revising previously written drafts — related
• Writing gains from written corrective feedback decline between post-test and delayed post-test — related
• Preposition accuracy gains from written corrective feedback are retained two weeks after treatment — related
• Written corrective feedback with an oral metalinguistic tutorial significantly improves Arabic EFL learners' preposition accuracy on an immediate post-test — related