High, average and low achievers taught with SMTV each significantly outperformed their DMTV counterparts on the posttest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? High achievers: experimental 80.83 vs control 67.17, t = 3.95, df = 10, p = .003. → Malik Behlol & Hukam Dad 2010 q2 i? Average achievers: experimental 68.00 vs control 56.00, t = 3.38, df = 14, p = .004. → Malik Behlol & Hukam Dad 2010 (2) q2 i? Low achievers: experimental 57.50 vs control 47.70, t = 4.06, df = 18, p = .001. → Malik Behlol & Hukam Dad 2010 (3)

Evidence¶

Malik Behlol & Hukam Dad 2010¶

Malik Behlol & Hukam Dad. (2010). Effectiveness of Structural Method of Teaching Vocabulary. English Language Teaching, 3(3). https://www.ccsenet.org/elt

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Posttest comparison for the high-achiever subgroup (n = 6 per group, matched on pretest where p = .831). The t test difference was significant at p = .003, rejecting the high-achiever null hypothesis.

"The means, standard deviations and standard errors of the means of the high achievers of the experimental group was found 80.83 and of the control group was 67.17."

Malik Behlol & Hukam Dad 2010 (2)¶

Malik Behlol & Hukam Dad. (2010). Effectiveness of Structural Method of Teaching Vocabulary. English Language Teaching, 3(3). https://www.ccsenet.org/elt

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Posttest comparison for average achievers (n = 8 per group; pretest difference p = .951). t = 3.38, df = 14, p = .004; the average-achiever null hypothesis was rejected.

"The mean of the experimental group was found 68.00 and of the control group was 56.00. The standard errors of the means were 2.77 and 2.19 respectively."

Malik Behlol & Hukam Dad 2010 (3)¶

Malik Behlol & Hukam Dad. (2010). Effectiveness of Structural Method of Teaching Vocabulary. English Language Teaching, 3(3). https://www.ccsenet.org/elt

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Posttest comparison for low achievers (n = 10 per group; pretest difference p = .966). t = 4.06, df = 18, p = .001, described as highly significant; the low-achiever null hypothesis was rejected.

"The mean of the experimental group was found 57.50 and of the control group was 47.70. The standard errors of the means were 1.63 and 1.77 respectively."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• High, average and low achievers taught with SMTV each significantly outperformed their DMTV counterparts on the retention test — related
• Ninth-grade students taught vocabulary with the structural method significantly outperformed students taught with the definitional method on the posttest — a broader claim this one bears on
• The SMTV group significantly outperformed the DMTV group on the delayed retention test — related