Explicit instruction combined with an intentional learning environment produced higher self-reported receptive knowledge of target vocabulary in fifth-grade ESL learners than the same lesson taught by another teacher¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · n=30
Currency · newest study 2018 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Students randomly selected into a lesson with explicit instruction and an intentional learning environment outperformed those taught the same lesson by another teacher, whose vocabulary teaching is not described, on the self-report VKS receptive test (t = 5.279, two-tail p = 0.00001). → Vincy 2018

Evidence¶

Vincy 2018¶

Vincy, R. I. (2018). The impact of explicit instruction and intentional learning in the reception of vocabulary: An experimental study. i-manager's Journal on English Language Teaching, 8(2). doi:10.26634/jelt.8.2.14155

q3 · two-group experiment, groups formed by random selection · i? · n=30 · causal · r2

Two-group experiment: 30 fifth-grade learners at one Tamil Nadu government school were divided "by random sampling" into two groups of 15; "Fifteen students were randomly selected among the total 30 students for the control group" and the remaining 15 formed the experimental group. The control group was taught the Unit 2 lesson by an English teacher unaware of the study; the experimental group was taught the same lesson by the researcher with explicit vocabulary instruction in an intentional learning environment. The paper does not describe how the control teacher handled vocabulary (its "partial embedded" label describes the class teacher's Unit 1 lesson observed the day before), and teacher and condition are not separated. Receptive knowledge was a self-report Vocabulary Knowledge Scale taken straight after the lesson, analysed with an independent two-sample t-test in Excel (alpha 0.05): the experimental group "outperformed the control group" (means 28.4 vs 14.133, SD 7.872 vs 6.895; t = 5.279, df = 28, p two-tail 0.00001; 95% CI of the difference 8.73 to 19.80).

"The mean of the VKS test scores of the participants of the control group was 14.133 and that of the experimental group was 28.4. The mean of the experimental group when compared with the mean of the control group again indicated the improvement in the reception of the target vocabulary."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Oral Language — outcome: instruction changes it
• Reading and Language — outcome: instruction changes it
• Vocabulary — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Observed classroom vocabulary teaching in the studied Tamil Nadu government school was a partial embedded method with minimal importance given to vocabulary and no intentional learning environment — related
• Combining intentional and incidental vocabulary learning produces greater gains and better retention than either mode alone — a broader claim this one bears on
• Pairing Contextual Encounters With Explicit Instruction Produces Stronger Vocabulary Outcomes Than Either Alone — a broader claim this one bears on
• Listening to vocabulary lessons while physically active improves End-of-Unit exam performance over traditional intentional learning alone — related
• After regular instruction on Unit 1, the class's receptive knowledge of the prescribed vocabulary was partial, averaging 14.23 out of 40 on the VKS — related
• Adult ESL students who read a short story could use incidentally acquired words in sentences, while students who learned word meanings in isolation could not — related
• Fifth-grade female students taught an English unit with e-Mind Maps scored significantly higher on the post achievement test than students taught with the traditional teacher-guide method — related
• ESL students using a spaced L2 vocabulary acquisition strategy with monthly incidental listening outperformed comparison students on the End-of-Experiment test — related