Written corrective feedback reduces grammatical errors in EFL post-test writing¶

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? At post-test, the experimental group made significantly fewer grammatical errors than the control group. → Al-Hazzani and Altalhab 2018

Evidence¶

Al-Hazzani and Altalhab 2018¶

Nahla Al-Hazzani, Sultan Altalhab. (2018). Can Explicit Written Corrective Feedback Develop Grammatical and Lexical Accuracy of Saudi EFL Learners? International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.4p.16

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Independent Sample t-test on post-test grammatical errors: control (n=21, M=5.19, SD=2.04) versus experimental (n=29, M=3.31, SD=1.65); the article reports t=3.600, p=0.001. The most prominent errors were "the misuse of prepositions, nouns, verbs, the omission of articles". No standardised effect size is printed in the quoted finding.

"Table 3 shows statistically significant differences between the number of student errors regarding grammar. This is favor of the control group students, with an average number of errors amounting to (5.19) compared to (3.31) for the experimental group."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Corpus-tool instruction significantly improves EFL student teachers' production of verb-noun collocations in writing, with a medium-to-large effect — related
• Direct unfocused WCF leads elementary EFL students to significantly outperform a no-feedback control group when revising previously written drafts — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Written corrective feedback reduces lexical errors in EFL post-test writing — related
• Grammatical accuracy gains from written corrective feedback are retained at delayed post-test, but lexical accuracy gains are not — related
• Writing gains from written corrective feedback decline between post-test and delayed post-test — related