In an ESP context, Focus on Form instruction via dictogloss produced significantly higher productive vocabulary posttest scores than both Focus on Meaning and Focus on Forms instruction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Learners in the FoF (dictogloss) group achieved significantly higher posttest scores than learners in the FoM and FoFs groups. → Saeidi et al. 2012 q2 i? The omnibus one-way ANOVA on posttest scores revealed a significant difference among the three instructional groups. → Saeidi et al. 2012

Evidence¶

Saeidi et al. 2012¶

Mahnaz Saeidi, Elaheh Zaferanieh & Hafez Shatery. (2012). On the Effects of Focus on Form, Focus on Meaning, and Focus on Forms on Learners' Vocabulary Learning in ESP Context. English Language Teaching, 5(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n10p72

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Experimental pretest–posttest study of 70 Iranian university ESP students assigned to three instruction groups; one-way ANOVA on posttest scores gave F = 37.360, Sig. .000 (Table 2), and "The findings showed that learners' scores in FoF group were significantly better than those of FoM group, and both of them achieved better scores than FoFs group."

"The results of ANOVA analyses revealed a significant difference between the three groups (see Table 2), but to identify which instructional approaches produced the significant results further post-hoc analyses were conducted."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Vocabulary — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• The authors attribute the dictogloss advantage to depth of processing, discovery learning, pushed output, noticing, awareness raising, negotiation, and collaboration — related
• Focus on Meaning instruction produced significantly higher productive vocabulary posttest scores than Focus on Forms (word-list) instruction — related