High achievers taught with the contextual method outperformed high achievers taught with the structural method on the posttest¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? High achievers in the contextual group (M = 79.5) scored significantly higher than high achievers in the structural group (M = 69.5) on the posttest, t(10) = 4.58, p = .001. → Malik Behlol & Mohammad Munir Kaini 2011
Evidence¶
Malik Behlol & Mohammad Munir Kaini 2011¶
Malik Behlol & Mohammad Munir Kaini. (2011). Comparative Effectiveness of Contextual and Structural Method of Teaching Vocabulary. English Language Teaching, 4(1). http://www.ccsenet.org/elt
q3 · i? · causal · r1
Posttest comparison of the high-achiever subgroups (6 per group) in the matched-groups experiment. The contextual group's high achievers scored "79.5 and 69.5" for group A and group B respectively, with p = .001 reported as significant.
"the mean of the high achievers of the group A and group B were 79.5 and 69.5"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Average and low achievers taught with the structural method outperformed their counterparts taught with the contextual method on the posttest — reports the opposite
- Students taught with the structural method of vocabulary teaching scored significantly higher than students taught with the contextual method on the posttest — reports the opposite
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.