Grammatical accuracy gains from written corrective feedback are retained at delayed post-test, but lexical accuracy gains are not¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Grammatical errors did not differ significantly between post-test (M=3.31) and delayed post-test (M=2.79) in the experimental group. → Al-Hazzani and Altalhab 2018 q2 i? Lexical errors rose significantly from post-test (M=1.41) to delayed post-test (M=3.59) in the experimental group. → Al-Hazzani and Altalhab 2018 (2)

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

Paired Sample t-test within the experimental group (n=29) on grammatical mistakes across post and delayed post-tests; the article reports t=1.192, p=0.238, which "is more than (0.05), indicating that this is not statistically significant". No effect size is printed.

"regarding grammatical errors, no statistically significant differences between the errors of the experimental group students either in the post or the post-delayed tests were found, with an average number of errors amounting to (3.31) for the post-test and (2.79) for the post-delayed test."

Al-Hazzani and Altalhab 2018 (2)¶

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

Paired Sample t-test within the experimental group (n=29) on lexical mistakes: post M=1.41 (SD=1.40) versus delayed post M=3.59 (SD=2.63); the article reports t=-3.930, p=0.000, favoring the post-test. No effect size is printed.

"The results in Table 4 indicated that there were statisti - cally significant differences for vocabulary used by the stu - dents in the experimental group, both in the post-test and the post-delayed test."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Vocabulary — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Written corrective feedback reduces grammatical errors in EFL post-test writing — related
• Written corrective feedback reduces lexical errors in EFL post-test writing — related
• Writing gains from written corrective feedback decline between post-test and delayed post-test — related
• All four written CF types, including metalinguistic code CF, outperformed the control group on the delayed posttest of explicit L2 knowledge two weeks later. — 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