Results

Mean scores on the pretest were nearly identical (table 1) and not significantly different (t = .09, df = 56, ns). The story-only group took the first posttest immediately after hearing the story and the story-plus-study group took it after hearing the story and answering comprehension questions. Nevertheless, the story-plus-study group did only slightly better, and the difference was not statistically significant (t = 1.5, df = 56, p = .13). After correcting the test in class, reading a written version of the story, and retelling the story, story-plus-study group performance was extremely high, with 74% achieving perfect scores.

On the delayed posttest, the story-plus-study group score declined somewhat but was far better than the story only group; the study-plus-story mean was nearly double that of the story-only group, and the difference was of course statistically significant (t = 10.17, df = 56, p < .001).

1st posttest: For story-only group, immediately after hearing the story. For story-plus-study, after hearing the story and answering comprehension questions.

Efficiency

Clearly, the form focused exercises helped subjects in the story-plus-study group learn more new words. In order to determine the efficiency of learning, the word-per-minute rate of acquisition was calculated.

Efficiency

For the first posttest, the story-only group efficiency was .62 words per minute (gain of 9.3 words/15 minutes). On the delayed posttest, the story-only efficiency was .25 (3.8 words gained/15 minutes).

For the story-plus-study group, efficiency on the first posttest was .42 words per minute (gain of 10.4 words/25 minutes). On the second posttest, efficiency was .23 words per minute (gain of 15 words/65 minutes). On the delayed posttest, efficiency for the story-plus-study group was .16 (gain of 11.4 words/70 minutes).

4