Claims

Focus on Meaning instruction produced significantly higher productive vocabulary posttest scores than Focus on Forms (word-list) 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

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.

q2 i? Learners' scores in the FoM group were significantly higher than the FoFs group on the productive vocabulary posttest. → 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

Scheffe post hoc multiple comparisons (Table 3) show a mean difference of 5.16206 for FoM versus FoFs, significant at the .05 level (Sig. .000); the FoF versus FoM difference of 2.54196 was also significant (Sig. .025).

"FoMFoFs FoF 5.16206* -2.54196* .93966 .91277 .000 .025 2.8104 -4.8263 7.51 -2.58"

Discussion

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.