Claims

The structural group retained significantly more vocabulary than the contextual group on the delayed retention test, except among high achievers

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2011 · 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.

q3 i? On the retention test the whole structural group (M = 61.85) scored significantly higher than the contextual group (M = 51.78), t(54) = 2.99, p = .004. → Malik Behlol & Mohammad Munir Kaini 2011 q3 i? High achievers taught with the contextual method retained more (M = 76.5) than high achievers taught with the structural method (M = 66.33), t(10) = 4.03, p = .002. → Malik Behlol & Mohammad Munir Kaini 2011 (2)

Evidence

Malik Behlol & Mohammad Munir Kaini 2011

Malik Behlol & Mohammad Munir Kaini. (2011). Comparative Effectiveness of Contextual and Structural Method of Teaching Vocabulary. English Language Teaching, 4(1). http://www.ccsenet.org/elt

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Delayed retention test administered to control the interaction of time of measurement and treatment; whole-group means were "51.78 and that of group B was 61.85", p = .004 reported as significant.

"The mean of the group A was found 51.78 and that of group B was 61.85"

Malik Behlol & Mohammad Munir Kaini 2011 (2)

Malik Behlol & Mohammad Munir Kaini. (2011). Comparative Effectiveness of Contextual and Structural Method of Teaching Vocabulary. English Language Teaching, 4(1). http://www.ccsenet.org/elt

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Retention-test comparison of high-achiever subgroups; the contextual group's high achievers scored "76.5 and 66.33" for groups A and B, p = .002 reported as significant, reversing the whole-group direction.

"the mean of the high achievers of the group A and group B were 76.5 and 66.33"

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.