Results
Mean scores on the pretest were similar (table 2). The Story-Plus group was better on all measures, including the surprise follow-up test given five weeks later, learning about twice as many words as the Story-Only group. All differences were statistically significant (p < .001).
Table 2: Story-Alone versus Story-Plus
| Group | Test | N | M | SD | Gain | Final Gain |
| Story | pre | 27 | 4.6 | 2.3 | ||
| post | 27 | 13.9 | 3.4 | 9.3 | ||
| delay | 27 | 8.4 | 3.5 | +3.8 | ||
| Story + | pre | 31 | 4.7 | 1.7 | ||
| mid | 31 | 15.1 | 2.6 | +10.4 | ||
| post | 31 | 19.7 | .6 | +15.0 | ||
| delay | 31 | 16.1 | 2.2 | +11.4 |
The Story-Plus group, however, invested much more total time than the Story-Only group. If we count time for testing, the Story-Only group acquired .15 words per minute and the Story-Plus group acquired .13 words per minute, nearly identical results. Not counting testing time, the story-only group looks even better, acquiring .25 words per minute.
Table 3: Efficiency
| Method | Time Spent | Remembered words | Rate |
| Story-Only | 25 minutes including testing time | 3.8 | 0.15 per minute |
| Story-PLUS | 85 minutes including testing time | 11.4 | 0.13 per minute |