The differential effect of oral and written corrective feedback on learners’ explicit versus implicit knowledge
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study seeks to address a gap in our understanding of how corrective feedback (CF) influences second language (L2) learning by examining the specific impacts of oral and written CF on acquiring the third person singular -s in the simple present tense. The study examines these effects on both explicit and implicit knowledge. The research was conducted in five intermediate adult English as a second language classrooms in Peru ( N = 101), using a pretest–posttest design with one control group ( n = 24) and four experimental groups: oral recast ( n = 21) oral metalinguistic CF ( n = 18) written direct CF ( n = 16) and written metalinguistic CF ( n = 22). The results revealed no significant difference between oral and written CF; however, differences were observed based on measurement types and CF subtypes used. This study’s findings carry theoretical and pedagogical implications, contributing valuable insights to both second language writing research and pedagogy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it