The effect of cooperative learning approach and semantic mapping strategy on the acquisition of L2 Persian vocabulary

Figures & data

Table 1. Groups’ mean scores on pretest and posttest

Teaching method		N	Mean	SD	Standard error of mean
DT	Posttest	30	18.533	1.995	364.0
	Pretest	30	13.333	482.2	453.0
CL	Posttest	30	600.25	338.3	609.0
	Pretest	30	466.14	360.3	613.0
SM	Posttest	30	29.266	1.142	609.0
	Pretest	30	466.14	360.3	.6130
CLSM	Posttest	30	27.933	2.242	0.409
	Pretest	30	13.600	2.159	0.394

Table 2. The difference between each group’s means on the posttest and the pretest

Teaching method	Mean difference	SD	95% Confidence interval of the difference		t value	Degree of freedom	Significance level
			Lower	Higher
DT	200.5	996.0	827.4	572.5	580.28	29	000.0
CL	133.11	285.2	279.10	986.11	682.26	29	000.0
SM	133.15	851.1	441.14	824.15	756.44	29	000.0
CLSM	14.333	0.884	14.003	14.663	88.800	29	0.000

Table 3. The difference between group means on the posttest

Compared groups		F value	Sig.	t value	Sig. (2 tailed)	Mean difference	95% Confidence interval of the difference
							Lower	Upper
DT vs SM	Equal variance assumed	402.12	001.0	567.25	000.0	733.10	892.9	573.11
	Equal variance not assumed			567.25	000.0	733.10	888.9	578.11
DT vs CL	Equal variance assumed	780.9	003.0	952.9	000.0	066.7	645.5	488.8
	Equal variance not assumed			952.9	0.000	066.7	638.5	494.8
DT vs CLSM	Equal variance assumed	0.910	0.034	17.151	0.000	9.400	8.302	10.497
	Equal variance not assumed			17.151	000.0	9.400	8.302	10.497

Table 4. The results of Freedman test for rank order of vocabulary teaching methods

Vocabulary teaching method	Mean of the rank	Rank order
SM	3.73	1
CLSM	3.13	2
CL	2.13	3
DT	1.00	4