Under dynamic task-type instruction, field-dependent learners significantly outperform field-independent learners, while within the static group FI learners significantly outperform FD learners¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? FD Dynamic students performed significantly better than FI Dynamic students (p = .002), and within the static group FI students significantly outperformed FD students (p = .000). → Gholam Reza Haji Pour Nezhad & Nasrin Shokrpour 2012

Evidence¶

Gholam Reza Haji Pour Nezhad & Nasrin Shokrpour 2012¶

Gholam Reza Haji Pour Nezhad & Nasrin Shokrpour. (2012). The Impact of Task Type and Cognitive Style on Vocabulary Learning. English Language Teaching, 5(9). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p17

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Tukey HSD comparisons among the four subgroups of the randomized controlled study showed significant differences within the Dynamic group (p = .002) and within the Static group (p = .000); the article also reports FI students marginally better than FD students overall (27.977 vs 27.357).

"FD dynamic students performed significantly better than FI dynamic students, who, in turn, performed significantly better than FD Static students."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Field-dependent learners are more sensitive to task type: they perform best of all subgroups under dynamic instruction and worst under static instruction — related
• Field-independent learners show no significant vocabulary difference between static and dynamic task-type instruction, with only a marginal trend favouring static — related
• Dynamic task-type vocabulary instruction produces significantly better vocabulary gains than static task-type instruction among intermediate EFL learners — related
• Without scaffolding, field-independent students outperform field-dependent students in learning achievement — related