Exploring the Efficiency of Vocabulary Instruction Strategies in Improving English

Language Proficiency

A Classroom-Based Action Research Paper

Presented to the

Faculty of College of Arts, Sciences,

and Education
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Context and Rationale ………………………………

Research Questions ………………………………

II. Methodology

Research Design ………………………………

Locale of the Study ………………………………

Participants or Sources of Data …………………………...

Data Collection Method ………………………………

Data Analysis Techniques………………………………

III. Description of Intervention

or Action Plan ………………………………

IV. Result and Discussion ………………………………

V. Reflection ………………………………

References

Appendixes
 Introduction

I. Context and Rationale

English language proficiency is increasingly recognized as a vital skill in

today's globalized world. Proficiency in English opens doors to educational and

professional opportunities, facilitates cross-cultural communication, and enhances

social integration. However, acquiring English language proficiency, particularly

vocabulary knowledge, can be challenging for many learners. Vocabulary forms the

foundation of language proficiency, influencing learners' reading comprehension,

writing ability, and overall communicative competence. Despite its importance, many

learners struggle to acquire and retain vocabulary effectively, leading to gaps in their

language skills and hindering their academic and professional advancement.

The efficacy of vocabulary instruction strategies in improving English

language proficiency has been explored in several research studies. One study

conducted classroom action research and found that an inquiry-based strategy

effective in improving students' vocabulary achievement (Mohammed, 2023).

Another study investigated the difficulties faced by students in vocabulary learning

and the strategies they used to overcome these challenges. The findings revealed that

students employed various strategies such as using media resources, note-taking

techniques, and consulting dictionaries to enhance their vocabulary learning process

(Musa et al., 2022). Additionally, a study highlighted the importance of incorporating

effective vocabulary teaching strategies to enhance EFL learners' reading abilities. It

emphasized the significant effect of vocabulary on improving reading abilities and

provided theoretical guidelines for vocabulary teaching (Nasri, 2022). Furthermore, a

study emphasized the importance of teaching vocabulary efficiently and adequately,

as it is the foundation of teaching English. It suggested that educators can design their
unique methods or techniques for teaching vocabulary based on their current situation

and abilities (Rosyada-As & Apoko, 2023). However, another study found that

vocabulary teaching and learning methods have not received much attention from

teachers and students, leading to less effective and practical vocabulary teaching

strategies in schools (Mohammed, 2023).

Vocabulary instruction strategies have been found to be less effective and

practical in secondary schools, leading to a lack of attention from teachers and

students (Alviani, 2023). Students face difficulties in acquiring vocabulary, including

pronunciation, spelling, usage, and retention (Mohammed, 2023). To overcome these

challenges, students employ various strategies such as using media resources, note-

taking, and consulting dictionaries (Rosyada-As & Apoko, 2023). The effectiveness

and necessity of phonics in English reading instruction have been demonstrated,

particularly for underachieving students (Mutia et al., 2023). Early diagnosis of

fundamental reading skills and individualized intensive guidance are needed to

support these students (Musa et al., 2022). Explicit vocabulary instruction has been

shown to significantly increase students' vocabulary scores, highlighting the

importance of incorporating it into the teaching and learning process .

This action research study is motivated by the desire to address the limitations

of traditional vocabulary instruction methods and enhance the efficacy of vocabulary

instruction in improving English language proficiency among learners. By

systematically investigating and evaluating different vocabulary instruction strategies,

such as phonemic instruction, contextual learning, and vocabulary games, this study

aims to identify approaches that are most effective in facilitating vocabulary

acquisition and enhancing language proficiency.

Action Research Question

The purpose of this action research is to explore the effectiveness of different

vocabulary instruction strategies in improving English language proficiency among

Grade 10-Decartes student of Regular Class of Tacurong National High School. By

implementing and evaluating various instructional approaches, this study seeks to

identify the most effective methods for teaching vocabulary and fostering language

acquisition.

Specifically it seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the level of language proficiency among Grage 10 students before

participating in a different vocabulary instruction strategies?

2. What is the level of language proficiency among Grade 10 students after

participating in a different vocabulary instruction strategies?

3. Is there a significant difference between the language proficiency of Grade10

students before and after participating in the vocabulary instruction strategies?

II. Methodology Research Design

Research Design

This action research study will employ a mixed-methods approach within an

three group to explore the efficacy of vocabulary instruction strategies in improving

English language proficiency. Mixed-methods research combines qualitative and

quantitative data collection and analysis methods to provide a comprehensive

understanding of the research phenomenon. In this study, both quantitative and

qualitative data will be collected from the same group of participants to gain insights

into the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction strategies and the factors influencing

their efficacy. By utilizing a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to provide a

nuanced understanding of how vocabulary instruction strategies impact English

language proficiency, considering both objective measures of proficiency and

subjective experiences and perceptions of learners and educators.

Locale of the Study

The study will be conducted in the regular program of the Tacurong National

High School, specifically in Grade 10-Decartes student of Regular Class of Tacurong

National High School School year 2024-2025 located at New Isabela, Tacurong City.

Participants

The participants in this action research study consist of 51 students enrolled in

Grade 10-Decartes student of Regular Class of Tacurong National High School of

who are actively engaged in English language learning. These students represent a

diverse range of backgrounds, language proficiency, and learning styles, reflecting the

heterogeneity commonly found in English language classrooms. The inclusion of this

participant group ensures a comprehensive exploration of vocabulary instruction

strategies' efficacy across various learner characteristics and contexts, thereby

enriching the study's findings and enhancing its relevance to English language

teaching practice.

Data Collection

In this action research study, data collection will primarily involve pre- and

post-tests to measure the impact of different vocabulary instruction strategies on

English language proficiency among learners. The pre-test will serve to establish

baseline levels of vocabulary knowledge and language proficiency among the

participants before the implementation of the instructional interventions. This initial

assessment will provide valuable insights into the starting point of the learners and aid

in tailoring the interventions to meet their specific needs. Following the pre-test, the

intervention phase will commence, during which various vocabulary instruction

strategies, including phonemic instruction, contextual learning, and vocabulary

games, will be implemented. Each strategy will be systematically introduced and

practiced over a specified period, allowing for comprehensive exposure and

engagement with the different instructional approaches.

Data Analysis

The data collected from the pre and post-tests will be analyzed using

descriptive statistics and inferential statistics to determine the impact of each

vocabulary instruction strategy on learners' English language proficiency. Descriptive

statistics such as means, standard deviations, and frequency distributions will be used

to summarize the central tendency and variability of the data. Additionally, inferential

statistics, such as paired-samples t-tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA), will be

employed to compare the pre and post-test scores and determine whether any

observed differences are statistically significant.

To further analyze and interpret the data of Exploring the Efficacy of

Vocabulary Instruction Strategies in Improving English Language Proficiency; the

following range of mean and interpretation employed.

Range of Mean Description Interpretation

4.20 – 5.00 Strongly Agree Very High

3.40 – 4.19 Agree High

2.60 – 3.39 Sometimes Moderately High

1.80 – 2.59 Disagree Low

1.00 – 1.79 Strongly Disagree Very Low

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations will be taken into account in the study. Informed

consent will be obtained from the participants and their parents/guardians, and

confidentiality and anonymity will be ensured. The study will also comply with

ethical guidelines and regulations concerning research involving human subjects.

 III. Description of Intervention or Action Plan

The action research titled “Exploring the Efficiency of Vocabulary Instruction

Strategies in Improving English Language Proficiency” is scheduled for

implementation during the 2024–2025 school year. It specifically addresses the

challenges that Grade 10-Decartes students at Tacurong National High School face in

vocabulary retention, pronunciation, and contextual usage. Traditional vocabulary

instruction has often failed to meet students’ diverse learning needs or to fully engage

them. As a response, this study incorporates three focused strategies: phonemic

instruction, contextual learning, and vocabulary games. These methods aim to make

vocabulary acquisition more meaningful, structured, and enjoyable. The intervention

is structured over seven weeks: Weeks 1–2 involve pre-tests and phonemic instruction

to develop sound recognition and spelling patterns; Weeks 3–4 focus on contextual

learning using sentence completion tasks and reading activities; Weeks 5–6 introduce

interactive vocabulary games like Bingo and word puzzles to reinforce learning

through engagement and competition; and Week 7 is dedicated to post-tests and

learner reflections. The intervention plan is reinforced by tools for assessment and

monitoring, including pre- and post-tests, teacher observation logs, activity sheets,

attendance records, and student feedback forms. As illustrated in the intervention

table, a sample phonemic instruction activity titled “Word Building with Phonemic

Sounds” demonstrates the practical integration of this strategy using vocabulary lists

and index cards to strengthen spelling through phonemic awareness. This holistic and

student-centered action plan is designed not only to improve vocabulary acquisition

but also to foster an engaging and inclusive classroom environment conducive to

language development.

IV. Result and Discussion

 This chapter presents the results, analysis and interpretation of the data

gathered as the result of this study.

Table 1. The Impact of Vocabulary Instruction Strategies on English Language

Proficiency
Vocabulary Compared p-
Mean SD t-value t-crit. Interpretation
Instruction Strategies Variables value
Pretest 5.35 1.61
Direct Instruction 26.76 2.01 0.00* Significant
Posttest 13.37 1.37

Pretest 4.57 0.73

Contextual Learning 22.76 2.01 0.00* Significant
Posttest 11.47 2.19

Pretest 6.61 1.02

Vocabulary Games 58.68 2.01 0.00* Significant
Posttest 15.00 0.00
* significant at 0.05 level

The results in Table 1 answer the question 1,2 and 3 demonstrate that all three

vocabulary instruction strategies, such as Direct Instruction, Contextual Learning, and

Vocabulary Games, significantly enhance English language proficiency among

learners. This is evidenced by the t-values, all of which exceed the critical value of

2.01, and the p-values of 0.00, indicating statistical significance at the 0.05 level.

Direct Instruction led to a notable improvement, with the mean score increasing from

5.35 (SD = 1.61) in the pretest to 13.37 (SD = 1.37) in the posttest. Similarly,

Contextual Learning showed a significant gain, as learners' mean scores rose from

4.57 (SD = 0.73) to 11.47 (SD = 2.19). Among the three strategies, Vocabulary

Games proved to be the most effective, yielding the highest posttest mean score of

15.00 (SD = 0.00) compared to a pretest mean of 6.61 (SD = 1.02), with an

exceptionally high t-value of 58.68. The results indicate that all three vocabulary

instruction strategies, such as Direct Instruction, Contextual Learning, and

Vocabulary Games, significantly improve students’ English language proficiency.

However, Vocabulary Games yielded the highest posttest mean score (15.00) and the

largest improvement from the pretest, suggesting that students may prefer interactive
 and engaging strategies over traditional methods. It reflects that there is a significant

difference between the students’ performance before and after participating in a

different strategies. This further implies that the combination of the three vocabulary

instruction strategies is effective in learning English, since the scores after the strategy

is better as shown in the mean ( ❑) and standard deviation ( ) compare to the scores

before the integration of the strategies (❑). The t-test results on vocabulary and

reading comprehension for 8th-grade students were significant, indicating a strong

correlation between vocabulary mastery and reading comprehension (Woga et al.,

2022). Explicit vocabulary instruction methods have shown significant positive

impacts on vocabulary learning outcomes. Studies have demonstrated that employing

various techniques, such as deep-end strategy integration, task-based activities, and

scenario-based sequencing, can effectively enhance students' receptive vocabulary

size (Mutia et al., 2023). Furthermore, the study by (Brown and Concannon, 2019)

highlighted the positive impact of vocabulary and reading strategies on students'

perceptions of knowledge and content achievement, emphasizing the pivotal role of

vocabulary in English literacy regardless of ability level (Cerna, 2023). These

findings collectively support the significance of t-test results in enhancing language

proficiency through targeted vocabulary instruction strategies.

V. Reflection

This action research was born out of a real and pressing need We observed
among learners—many of them struggled to acquire and retain English vocabulary, a

core component of language proficiency. Understanding how crucial vocabulary is to

reading, writing, and speaking, I felt the urgency to explore effective ways to support

my Grade 10 students. I wanted to see whether specific strategies—phonemic instruc-

tion, contextual learning, and vocabulary games—could truly make a difference in

how they engage with and master new words.

As I implemented these strategies, the results were eye-opening. Across the

board, there were significant improvements in students’ vocabulary scores, but what

stood out most was how well the students responded to vocabulary games. They were

not only learning more but were also visibly more engaged and motivated. The inter-

active nature of the games seemed to resonate with their learning styles. Contextual

learning and phonemic instruction also showed positive outcomes, further supporting

the idea that using a mix of approaches can meet learners where they are and help

them succeed.

Reflecting on the process, I realized how important it is for teachers to be flex-

ible and innovative in their instruction. Our role shifted from being just a content de-

liverer to a facilitator and motivator—someone who creates opportunities for students

to actively explore and enjoy learning. Of course, there were challenges too. Time

was a limiting factor, and we believe the impact could have been even greater with a

longer intervention period. Including more student feedback, especially through inter-

views or focus group discussions, would also give richer insights into their learning

experiences.
 Looking ahead, we see so much potential to build on this foundation. Future

implementations should include long-term follow-ups to check how well students re-

tain vocabulary over time. We also see value in integrating technology—such as vo-

cabulary apps or gamified platforms—to further enhance learning and motivation. As

educators, we must keep evolving our methods, using both qualitative and quantita-

tive data to inform and refine our practices.

In conclusion, this research reaffirmed my belief that a thoughtful, diversified

approach to teaching vocabulary not only supports better learning outcomes but also

makes the process more meaningful and enjoyable for students. It is my hope that

these strategies will continue to inspire both teaching practices and curriculum

development that truly center the learner’s experience.

References:
Alviani, A. (2023, March 30). Strategy In Teaching English Vocabulary. JETISH

Journal of Education Technology Information Social Sciences and

Health. https://doi.org/10.57235/jetish.v2i1.445

Mohammed, A. K. (2023, July 17). Vocabulary Learning Strategies Vis-a- Vis

Vocabulary Teaching Strategies. Journal of Languages and Language

Teaching. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v11i3.7656

Mutia, A., Sahardin, R., & Putra, G. M. (2023, January 8). The impact of vocabulary

instruction on vocabulary achievement. English Education Journal.

https://doi.org/10.24815/eej.v13i4.30005

Musa, A. E. Z., Destari, D., Pramesworo, I. S., Asfar, D. A., & Irmayani, I. (2022,

July 5). Strategies for Improving Vocabulary English. KnE Social

Sciences. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v7i10.11385

Nasri, C. (2022, July 29). Effective Vocabulary Teaching Strategies to Enhance EFL

Learners’ Reading Abilities: A Case Study. JELITA Journal of Education

Language Innovation and Applied Linguistics.

https://doi.org/10.37058/jelita.v1i2.5196

Rosyada-As, A., & Apoko, T. W. (2023, July 18). Investigating English Vocabulary

Difficulties and Its Learning Strategies of Lower Secondary School Students.

Journal of Languages and Language Teaching.

https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v11i3.8404

Myers, James L. and Chang, Shu-Fen. "A multiple-strategy-based approach to word

and collocation acquisition" International Review of Applied Linguistics in

Language Teaching, vol. 47, no. 2, 2009, pp. 179-207.

https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.008
Kirana, D. P., & Basthomi, Y. (2020, October 1). Vocabulary Size among Different

Levels of University Students. Universal Journal of Educational Research.

https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081001

Afzal, N. (2019, January 1). A Study on Vocabulary-Learning Problems Encountered

by BA English Majors at the University Level of Education. Social

Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3465990

Putra, H. E. (2016, September 28). EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING

VOCABULARY TO YOUNG LEARNERS. Ta’dib (Batusangkar).

https://doi.org/10.31958/jt.v14i2.209

Woga, W. S., Wirastuti, I. G. A. P., & Krismayani, N. W. (2022, September 27).

CORRELATION BETWEEN VOCABULARY MASTERY AND READING

COMPREHENSION OF EIGHTH-GRADE STUDENTS OF SMP TP. 45

DENPASAR. Jurnal Santiaji Pendidikan.

https://doi.org/10.36733/jsp.v12i2.4831

Mutia, A., Sahardin, R., & Putra, G. M. (2023, January 8). The impact of vocabulary

instruction on vocabulary achievement. English Education Journal.

https://doi.org/10.24815/eej.v13i4.30005

Cerna, G. M. S. (2023, October 30). Enriching students’ language skills for grade 8.

Electronic Journal of Education, Social Economics and Technology.

https://doi.org/10.33122/ejeset.v4i2.56
 Appendixes

April 2025

(PRINCIOAL NAME)
School Principal II
Tacurong National High School
City of Tacurong

Dear Sir Diaz:

Greetings of Peace and Solidarity! `

The group of BSEd English Education students of Notre Dame of Tacurong College
will conduct an action research as one of the requirements of PED 214: Teaching
Internship. Anent to this, we would like to ask permission from your office to allow
us to conduct our study among your students.
Rest assured that the result of this study will be used solely for administrative and
academic purposes.
Hoping for your kind consideration and approval regarding this request. Thank you.

Truly yours,

Group Leader

Noted:

Research Adviser

JEAN T. FERMIN, MT III

Academic Coordinator

Approved:

School Principal II

PARENTS’ CONSENT
April 2025

Dear Parent/Guardian of the Respondent:

 We, the researchers, are asking for your permission to allow your son/daughter
to answer the pre-test/post-test that we prepared for our study entitled:Exploring the
Efficiency of Vocabulary Instruction Strategies in Improving English Language
Proficiency

Answering the pre-test/post-test is voluntary, and your child has the option to
withdraw at any time without consequence. Moreover, all responses will be kept
confidential and used for research purposes only. There are no foreseeable risks
associated with participating in this activity. Your child's participation will really
contribute to the success and accuracy of our study.

Thank you for considering this request. Your support is greatly appreciated.

____________________________
Guardian Name and Signature

DIRECT INSTRUCTION

R# PRE TEST POST TEST

Diff (X - Sq. Diff (X - Diff (X - Sq. Diff (X -
SCORE SCORE
M) M)2 M) M)2
1 3 -2.35 5.54 14 0.63 0.39

2 3 -2.35 5.54 15 1.63 2.65

3 5 -0.35 0.12 13 -0.37 0.14

4 5 -0.35 0.12 10 -3.37 11.37

5 6 0.65 0.42 11 -2.37 5.63

6 4 -1.35 1.83 14 0.63 0.39

7 5 -0.35 0.12 14 0.63 0.39

8 6 0.65 0.42 15 1.63 2.65

9 3 -2.35 5.54 13 -0.37 0.14

10 4 -1.35 1.83 12 -1.37 1.88

11 3 -2.35 5.54 14 0.63 0.39

12 4 -1.35 1.83 13 -0.37 0.14

13 5 -0.35 0.12 15 1.63 2.65

14 5 -0.35 0.12 12 -1.37 1.88

15 4 -1.35 1.83 14 0.63 0.39

16 3 -2.35 5.54 13 -0.37 0.14

17 6 0.65 0.42 14 0.63 0.39

18 5 -0.35 0.12 13 -0.37 0.14

19 4 -1.35 1.83 12 -1.37 1.88

20 6 0.65 0.42 15 1.63 2.65

21 5 -0.35 0.12 11 -2.37 5.63

22 5 -0.35 0.12 11 -2.37 5.63

23 8 2.65 7.01 12 -1.37 1.88

24 5 -0.35 0.12 13 -0.37 0.14

25 5 -0.35 0.12 13 -0.37 0.14

26 4 -1.35 1.83 14 0.63 0.39

27 6 0.65 0.42 13 -0.37 0.14

28 6 0.65 0.42 15 1.63 2.65

29 5 -0.35 0.12 15 1.63 2.65

30 4 -1.35 1.83 14 0.63 0.39

31 4 -1.35 1.83 15 1.63 2.65

 32 3 -2.35 5.54 14 0.63 0.39

33 5 -0.35 0.12 13 -0.37 0.14

34 6 0.65 0.42 13 -0.37 0.14

35 6 0.65 0.42 14 0.63 0.39

36 7 1.65 2.71 15 1.63 2.65

37 9 3.65 13.3 15 1.63 2.65

38 6 0.65 0.42 12 -1.37 1.88

39 7 1.65 2.71 11 -2.37 5.63

40 8 2.65 7.01 10 -3.37 11.37

41 5 -0.35 0.12 14 0.63 0.39

42 6 0.65 0.42 13 -0.37 0.14

43 6 0.65 0.42 14 0.63 0.39

44 7 1.65 2.71 13 -0.37 0.14

45 8 2.65 7.01 15 1.63 2.65

46 9 3.65 13.3 15 1.63 2.65

47 5 -0.35 0.12 14 0.63 0.39

48 4 -1.35 1.83 15 1.63 2.65

49 9 3.65 13.3 14 0.63 0.39

50 7 1.65 2.71 13 -0.37 0.14

51 4 -1.35 1.83 13 -0.37 0.14

M: 5.35 SS: 129.65 M: 13.37 SS: 93.92

Difference Scores Calculations

Treatment 1

N1: 51

df1 = N - 1 = 51 - 1 = 50

M1: 5.35

SS1: 129.65
s21 = SS1/(N - 1) = 129.65/(51-1) = 2.59

Treatment 2

N2: 51

df2 = N - 1 = 51 - 1 = 50

M2: 13.37

SS2: 93.92

s22 = SS2/(N - 1) = 93.92/(51-1) = 1.88

T-value Calculation

s2p = ((df1/(df1 + df2)) * s21) + ((df2/(df2 + df2)) * s22) = ((50/100) * 2.59) + ((50/100) * 1.88) = 2.

s2M1 = s2p/N1 = 2.24/51 = 0.04

s2M2 = s2p/N2 = 2.24/51 = 0.04

t = (M1 - M2)/√(s2M1 + s2M2) = -8.02/√0.09 = -27.08

The t-value is -27.08431. The p-value is < .00001. The result is significant at p < .05.

CONTEXTUAL LEARNING

RESPONDEN
PRE TEST POST TEST
T
Diff
SCOR Sq. Diff (X - Diff (X - Sq. Diff (X -
(X - SCORE
E M)2 M) M)2
M)

1 6 1.43 2.05 14 2.53 6.4

2 5 0.43 0.19 15 3.53 12.46

3 5 0.43 0.19 13 1.53 2.34

4 5 0.43 0.19 10 -1.47 2.16

5 5 0.43 0.19 11 -0.47 0.22

-
6 4 0.32 14 2.53 6.4
0.57

7 5 0.43 0.19 14 2.53 6.4

8 5 0.43 0.19 15 3.53 12.46

9 5 0.43 0.19 13 1.53 2.34

10 5 0.43 0.19 12 0.53 0.28

-
11 4 0.32 14 2.53 6.4
0.57

12 5 0.43 0.19 13 1.53 2.34

13 5 0.43 0.19 15 3.53 12.46

14 5 0.43 0.19 12 0.53 0.28

15 5 0.43 0.19 12 0.53 0.28

16 5 0.43 0.19 13 1.53 2.34

17 5 0.43 0.19 13 1.53 2.34

18 5 0.43 0.19 12 0.53 0.28

19 5 0.43 0.19 11 -0.47 0.22

20 5 0.43 0.19 14 2.53 6.4

-
21 4 0.32 13 1.53 2.34
0.57

-
22 4 0.32 12 0.53 0.28
0.57

-
23 4 0.32 13 1.53 2.34
0.57

-
24 3 2.46 9 -2.47 6.1
1.57

-
25 3 2.46 7 -4.47 19.99
1.57

26 5 0.43 0.19 8 -3.47 12.04

27 5 0.43 0.19 10 -1.47 2.16

28 5 0.43 0.19 10 -1.47 2.16

29 5 0.43 0.19 8 -3.47 12.04

30 5 0.43 0.19 8 -3.47 12.04

31 5 0.43 0.19 7 -4.47 19.99

32 5 0.43 0.19 7 -4.47 19.99

33 5 0.43 0.19 15 3.53 12.46

-
34 4 0.32 12 0.53 0.28
0.57

-
35 4 0.32 12 0.53 0.28
0.57

-
36 4 0.32 13 1.53 2.34
0.57

-
37 3 2.46 11 -0.47 0.22
1.57

-
38 3 2.46 10 -1.47 2.16
1.57

39 5 0.43 0.19 9 -2.47 6.1

40 5 0.43 0.19 9 -2.47 6.1

41 5 0.43 0.19 9 -2.47 6.1

42 5 0.43 0.19 12 0.53 0.28

43 5 0.43 0.19 12 0.53 0.28

44 5 0.43 0.19 12 0.53 0.28

45 5 0.43 0.19 12 0.53 0.28

46 5 0.43 0.19 12 0.53 0.28

-
47 4 0.32 11 -0.47 0.22
0.57

-
48 4 0.32 10 -1.47 2.16
0.57

-
49 4 0.32 12 0.53 0.28
0.57

-
50 3 2.46 10 -1.47 2.16
1.57

-
51 3 2.46 10 -1.47 2.16
1.57

M: SS: 26.51 M: 11.47 SS: 240.71

 4.57

Difference Scores Calculations

Treatment 1

N1: 51

df1 = N - 1 = 51 - 1 = 50

M1: 4.57

SS1: 26.51

s21 = SS1/(N - 1) = 26.51/(51-1) = 0.53

Treatment 2

N2: 51

df2 = N - 1 = 51 - 1 = 50

M2: 11.47

SS2: 240.71

s22 = SS2/(N - 1) = 240.71/(51-1) = 4.81

T-value Calculation

s2p = ((df1/(df1 + df2)) * s21) + ((df2/(df2 + df2)) * s22) = ((50/100) * 0.53) + ((50/100)
* 4.81) = 2.67

s2M1 = s2p/N1 = 2.67/51 = 0.05

s2M2 = s2p/N2 = 2.67/51 = 0.05

t = (M1 - M2)/√(s2M1 + s2M2) = -6.9/√0.1 = -21.32

The t-value is -21.3212. The p-value is < .00001. The result is significant at p < .05.

VOCABULARY GAMES

RESPONDENT PRE TEST POST TEST

Sq. Diff Diff (X - Sq. Diff
SCORE Diff (X - M) SCORE
(X - M)2 M) (X - M)2

1 6 -0.61 0.37 15 0 0

2 6 -0.61 0.37 15 0 0

3 6 -0.61 0.37 15 0 0

4 6 -0.61 0.37 15 0 0

5 6 -0.61 0.37 15 0 0

6 6 -0.61 0.37 15 0 0

7 6 -0.61 0.37 15 0 0

8 6 -0.61 0.37 15 0 0

9 6 -0.61 0.37 15 0 0

10 6 -0.61 0.37 15 0 0

11 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

12 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

13 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

14 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

15 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

16 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

17 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

18 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

19 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

20 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

21 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

22 8 1.39 1.94 15 0 0

23 8 1.39 1.94 15 0 0
24 8 1.39 1.94 15 0 0

25 8 1.39 1.94 15 0 0

26 8 1.39 1.94 15 0 0

27 8 1.39 1.94 15 0 0

28 8 1.39 1.94 15 0 0

29 8 1.39 1.94 15 0 0

30 8 1.39 1.94 15 0 0

31 8 1.39 1.94 15 0 0

32 5 -1.61 2.59 15 0 0

33 5 -1.61 2.59 15 0 0

34 5 -1.61 2.59 15 0 0

35 5 -1.61 2.59 15 0 0

36 5 -1.61 2.59 15 0 0

37 5 -1.61 2.59 15 0 0

38 5 -1.61 2.59 15 0 0

39 5 -1.61 2.59 15 0 0

40 5 -1.61 2.59 15 0 0

41 5 -1.61 2.59 15 0 0

42 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

43 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

44 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

45 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

46 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

47 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

48 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

49 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

50 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

51 7 0.39 0.15 15 0 0

M: 6.61 SS: 52.16 M: 15.00 SS: 0.00

Difference Scores Calculations

Treatment 1

N1: 51

df1 = N - 1 = 51 - 1 = 50

M1: 6.61

SS1: 52.16

s21 = SS1/(N - 1) = 52.16/(51-1) = 1.04

Treatment 2

N2: 51

df2 = N - 1 = 51 - 1 = 50

M2: 15

SS2: 0

s22 = SS2/(N - 1) = 0/(51-1) = 0

T-value Calculation

s2p = ((df1/(df1 + df2)) * s21) + ((df2/(df2 + df2)) * s22) = ((50/100) * 1.04) +

((50/100) * 0) = 0.52

s2M1 = s2p/N1 = 0.52/51 = 0.01

s2M2 = s2p/N2 = 0.52/51 = 0.01

t = (M1 - M2)/√(s2M1 + s2M2) = -8.39/√0.02 = -58.68

The t-value is -58.67971. The p-value is < .00001. The result is significant at p
< .05.