Field-independent learners show no significant vocabulary difference between static and dynamic task-type instruction, with only a marginal trend favouring static¶

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? FI learners taught through static versus dynamic task-type techniques did not differ significantly (p = .558), though their means trended toward better performance under static instruction. → 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 comparison in the randomized controlled study found the FI Dynamic versus FI Static difference non-significant (Sig. .564 in the first row); the article notes FI learners show a trend of better performance with static task-type, but equivalence was not tested.

"there were no significant differences in the performance of the FI group (FI learners taught through the static versus dynamic task-type techniques, p= .558)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Under dynamic task-type instruction, field-dependent learners significantly outperform field-independent learners, while within the static group FI learners significantly outperform FD learners — related
• Field-dependent learners are more sensitive to task type: they perform best of all subgroups under dynamic instruction and worst under static instruction — related
• Dynamic task-type vocabulary instruction produces significantly better vocabulary gains than static task-type instruction among intermediate EFL learners — related