Channels, Fall 2017

Channels • 2017 • Volume 3 • Number 1 Page 41 Results Data from each of the posttests were collected and organized in the following tables. Table 1 shows the mean scores for the pre-test, immediate post-tests, and delayed post-test, by group, word set, and the method used. Table 1. Mean scores on all tests Group Words / Method Pretest Immediate Posttest Delayed Posttest A 1-10 / CEM 0.00 8.875 4.00 A 11-20 / KM 0.00 9.00 6.00 B 1-10 / KM 0.00 9.00 5.75 B 11-20 / CEM 0.25 9.375 7.875 This data does not indicate that either method is significantly more effective than the other. Table 1 shows that in both the immediate and delayed post-tests, Group B, using the Keyword Method, retained more of the vocabulary words 1-10 than Group A, using the L1 Context Embedding Method. However, Group B also retained more of the vocabulary words 11-20, with the L1 Context Embedding Method, than Group A, with the Keyword Method. This proves that the method used was not the most significant factor in this study. Although I attempted to minimize any other factors, the data shows that either the intelligence of the participants and/or the order in which the methods were used had a greater effect on the amount of vocabulary retained. Because of the limited number of participants, their intelligence or memory may have had a significant effect on the results. The participants in Group B as a whole may simply have had a greater ability to remember and retrieve the vocabulary items from their memory. Since each group was taught a set of words with each method, the order of instruction may also have had a significant effect. Table 1 shows that both groups retained more of the target vocabulary from words 11-20 than from words 1-10. In the immediate post-test this was not as substantial (a mean difference of .125 for Group A and .375 for Group B), but in the delayed post-test the mean difference was much more noteworthy (2.00 and 2.125, respectively). Another possibility is that words 11-20 were simply not as difficult to learn as words 1-10. It appears more likely, however, that the order in which the sets of words were presented was the greater factor because of this disparity between the mean differences in the immediate posttest as compared to the delayed posttest. Since an immediate post-test was given after presenting each set of words, it is understandable that there was not much of a difference between the amount of target vocabulary retained from words 1-10 and words 11-20. In the delayed post-test, however, it is likely that the participants were better able to recall the words which they had learned last during the session a week earlier – words 11-20.