CHAPTER 4. FINDING AND DISCUSSION
4.4. Discussion
The data analysis revealed that students in both the control and experimental groups initially had equal levels of vocabulary knowledge. All of them belonged to either moderate understanding, some understanding, and little to no understanding levels who could understand equal or less than 70% of vocabulary after learning 2 months.
Regarding vocabulary retention, the data for the two groups were almost the same at first. Nevertheless, after two months of study, only the experimental group that received specific therapy through the use of spaced repetition saw substantial improvements in the results. The finding is similar to Raleigh (1996), Laird S. Cermak et al(1996), Baturay et al (2009) who all agreed that students made improvements with spaced repetition when the same teaching approach was used in general. In Laird S.
Cermak’s research about Amnesia patients, it was explored that spaced repetition benefited from the repetition and spacing of items in both a recognition (Experiment 1) and a recall task (Experiment 2). In both tasks, items that were repeated were remembered significantly better than items that were presented only once and items repeated following a lag of five intervening items were remembered significantly better than items presented on adjacent trials. Furthermore, the effects of repetition and spacing were of equivalent magnitude in the amnesia and control groups. The finding of intact spacing effects in amnesia patients' recognition memory is consistent
rehearsal that items receive when they are repeated following a lag. Furthermore, the Baturay argued in his research called “Effects of web-based spaced repetition on vocabulary retention of Foreign language learners” that the results of the study demonstrate that WEBVOCLE is effective for remembering words previously taught in the classroom. Throughout the study, learners are exposed to three modules consisting of 10 to 12 target words. Learners' vocabulary retention for each of the three modules, in relation to their frequency of participation and the difference in scores before and after the test, was analyzed by computer ANOVA and after-school test. As a result, the number of words that learners memorized increased in Modules A and C. The results also showed that the number of words recalled decreased for learners who did not do any review. The difference in mean scores was especially observed with revisions of practices 2 and 4. That is, learners' vocabulary retention increased as they revised words in all four practices. instead of just two practices. In addition, the mean score difference between the pre-tests is 1.9 for Module A, 0.3 for Module B and 2.6 for Module B. C. Learners' vocabulary retention increased the most in Module C, with about 2.5 words, and the least in Module B, with less than one word on average; however, learners can still remember almost the same number of words that they learned before doing Module B.
Whereas the statistics for students in the control group revealed a small difference in vocabulary knowledge, there was a significant advancement in the vocabulary of students in the experimental group. Initially, all students in the latter group were
"Moderate Understanding," "Some Understanding," and "Little to No Understanding"
students (as described by the investigator using the name she established for each group based on their pre-test results). However, after the application of spaced repetition, they all became “Good Understanding”, “Great Understanding” and “No Misunderstanding” students who could remember from 85% to 100% words and phrases they have learned.
Statistics from practice by sessions also revealed significant gains in students' vocabulary retention; hence, it is possible to conclude that spaced repetition significantly influenced students' vocabulary retention. Despite varied in-session
the experimental group performed better in the end period of practice in all sessions.
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION
This chapter presented the summary, the implications, the limitations as well as some suggestions for future research.
5.1. Summary of the study
This research considers the effects of spaced repetition method on high school students at Viet Yen High School Number 1.
The research used a semi-empirical research approach, with 26 students from grade 11A5 comprising the control and experimental group. There are 13 pupils in each group. The data for analysis were acquired using pre and post-tests with the same passage, and they were meant to compare the results gained by the control group with the experimental group before and after the time period. Based on this data, the researcher would not anticipate tobserving a significant difference in the test scores of the two groups, implying that spaced replicates had little effect on improving students' vocabulary retention.
helping students improve their vocabulary retention as well as their level of vocabulary knowledge.
5.2. Implications
Based on the preceding chapter's findings on the usefulness of spaced repetition in improving students' vocabulary recall, it can be inferred that this technique can be a beneficial integrative strategy in teaching vocabulary. This section provides some ideas and suggestions for utilizing spaced repetition to teach vocabulary in a foreign language classroom.
Firstly, the results from research imply that learners who have difficulties decoding words might have to be educated by reading individual words or phrases foremost rather than an uninterrupted text.
Knowing that students may encounter some difficulties at the beginning of the learning period, such as the feeling of stressful if they do not know the meaning of new words, the pressure from long passages, the researchers suggested that teachers make a careful choice of passages that are suitable to students’ level with simple Sometimes, new words can be a big problem for students. A lot of new words in a passage can cause difficulty in reading and significantly demotivated them. Therefore, teachers should plan sufficient support such as providing a glossary for each passage or pre-teach the new difficult vocabulary for students.
5.3. Limitations of the study
The study examined the effectiveness of spaced repetition method on high school students at Viet Yen High School Number 1 in Bac Giang city. Although the researchers have made effort toward conducting this research, there undoubtedly exist some limitations.
For the study itself, because of covid 19 pandemic, the researcher could not apply the method to the whole class of 43 people because there are some students who contracted the Covid-19 disease or F1 subjects who cannot attend school. As a result, the study's sample size was quite small, with just 13 students in each group, and the
the SR did not include measuring prosodic features. One of the main reasons was that learners had not had experience in SR and they did not voluntarily study according to the assigned schedule; therefore, it takes the researcher a great deal of time to check and remind.
5.4. Recommendations for further study
Students who have been trained to physically remove themselves have profited from this practice and they should use the SR approach in class as well as at home. Apart from that, they must adhere to strict regulations and timetables. Furthermore, for more solid results, further study might be conducted on Primary, Secondary School, or University students.
Based on the study's limitations, there are several recommendations for future research to get additional merits from spaced repeating practice. First and foremost, future research might use this approach to a larger number of students in order to collect more data and gain a better understanding of how much it aids in the development of retention. vocabulary. Additionally, pilot testing should be carried out initially to increase the dependability of the data and their interpretation.
REFERENCES
1. Aaronson, Doris (1994). Computer use in cognitive psychology. Behavior research methods, instruments, and computers, 26 (2), 81-93.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications, 3rd edition, New York, NY: W. H. Freeman publishers.
3. Alhaysony, M. (2012). Vocabulary discovery strategy used by Saudi EFL students in an intensive English language learning context. International journal of linguistic, 4(2): 518- 535.
EFL students at Ajloun National University. International Journal of English Language, Literature and Humanities, 3(10), 632-651.
5. Ahmadi, M. R., Ismail, H. N., & Abdullah, M. K. (2012). Improving
vocabulary learning in foreign language learning through reciprocal teaching strategy. International Journal of Learning & Development, 2(6), 186-201.
6. Ausubel, D. P, and Youssef, M. (1965). The effect of spaced repetition on meaningful retention. Journal of general psychology, 73, 147-150.
7. Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, L. E., Bahrick, A. S., & Bahrick, P. E. (1993).
Maintenance of foreign language vocabulary and the spacing effect.
Psychological Science, 4, 316-321
8. Burston, J. (2013). Mobile-assisted language learning: A selected annotated bibliography of implementation studies 1994-2012. Language Learning and Technology , 17, 157-225.
9. Bloom, K. C., & Shuell, T. J. (1981). Effects of massed and distributed practice on the learning and retention of second-language vocabulary. Journal of
Educational Research, 74, 245-248.
10. Cahill, A., and Toppino, T. C. (1993). Young children's recognition as a function of the spacing of repetitions and the type of study and test stimuli.
11. Durgunoglu, A. Y., et al. (1993). Effects of repeated readings on bilingual and monolingual memory for text. Contemporary educational psychology. 18 gj., 294-317.
12. Ellis, N. C. (1995). The Psychology of Foreign Language Vocabulary Acquisition: Implications for CALL. International Journal on Computer- Assisted Language Learning (CALL), 8, 103-128.
13. Flege, J., Bohn, O. S. & Jang, S. (1997). The effect of experience on nonnative subjects’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437-470.
14. Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S.
(2012). Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology
105. doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.700315
15. Hall, James W. (1992). Unmixing effects of spacing on free recall. Journal of experimental psychology: learning, memory. and cognition. 18 (3), 608-614.
16. Harmer, J. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London:
Longman.
17. Hermann Ebbinghaus. Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology.
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1885
18. Hsieh, P. P. & Kang, H. S. (2010). Attribution and self-efficacy and their interrelationship in the Korean EFL context. Language Learning, 60, 606-627.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00570.
19. Kahana, M. J., and Greene, R. L. (1993). Effects of spacing on memory for homogeneous lists. Journal of experimental psychology learning, memory. and cognition, 19 (1), 159-162.
20. Kapukaya, K. (2006). Enjoyable vocabulary teaching and learning with cultural differences. IBSU International Refereed Multi-disciplinary Science Journal, 1, 161- 166.
21. Kitao, Norihiko. (1992). A study of spacing effect in free recall of sentences:
on full processing hypothesis. Japanese journal of psychology. 63 121 100-106 22. Kornell, N. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more
effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1297-1317. doi:
10.1002/acp.1537
23. Krashen, S.D. & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. London: Prentice Hall Europe.
24. Leis, A., Tohei, A., & Cooke, S. D. (2015). Smartphone assisted language learning and autonomy. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 5, 75-88.
25. Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1994). Students’ perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 81-101.
26. Linse, Caroline T. 2006. Practical English Language Teaching: Young Learners. In Nunan, David (Ed.). New York: Mc. Graw-Hill.
York. Cambridge University Press.
28.McKitrick, L.A., Camp, C.J. and Black, F.W. (1992) Prospective Memory Intervention in Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Gerontology, 47, 337-343.
29. Predebon, J., Docker, S. B. (1992). Free-throw shooting performance as a function of preshot routines. Perceptual and motor skills, 75 (1), 167-171 30. Rahimy, R., & Shams, K. (2012). An investigation of the effectiveness of
vocabulary learning strategies on Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary test score.
International Education Studies, 5(5), 141-152.
31. Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Elements of the competitive situation that affect intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 24–
33.
32. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (3rd Ed.). London: Pearson Education.
33. Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in longterm retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 20-27.
34. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249- 255.
35. Saengpakdeejit, R. (2014). Awareness of vocabulary learning strategies among EFL students in Khon Kaen University. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(6), 1101-1108.
36. Soureshjani, K.H. (2011). Gender-oriented Use of Vocabulary Strategies: A Comparative Study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 1.7, 898-902 37. Tunchalearnpanih, P. (2013). The study of the effects of using vocabulary
games on the learning vocabulary of prathomsuksa six students of Praram 9 Kanjanapisek School. (Unpublished thesis), Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand.
38. Tseng, W-T. & Schmitt, N. (2008). Model of motivated vocabulary learning.
Language Learning 58, 357–400.
learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 9, 573-590.
40. Ushida, E. (2003). The Role of Students’ Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language in Online Language Courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
41. Wilkins, D.A. 1972. Linguistics in Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
42. Wrigglesworth, J., & Harvor, F. (2018). Making their own landscape:
smartphones and student designed language learning environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31, 437-458. doi:
10.1080/09588221.2017.1412986
43. Werker, J. F. (1989). Becoming a native listener. American Scientist, 77, 54- 59.
44. Zimmerman, C. B. (1997). Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy (pp. 5-19). Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
APPENDIXES 1. Pre-test 1
1. admission /ədˈmɪʃn/(n)
a. được nhận vào một trường học b. nghỉ học
c. tham gia d. hạnh phúc
2. analytical /ˌænəˈlɪtɪkl/(adj) a. phân tích
b. nhập học c. quan sát d. lắng nghe
3. baccalaureate /ˌbækəˈlɔːriət/(n) a. kì thi tú tài
c. hôn nhân d. bằng cấp
4. collaboration /kəˌlæbəˈreɪʃn/(n) a. cộng tác
b. bằng cấp c. kì thi tú tài d. kết hôn
5. coordinator /kəʊˈɔːdɪneɪtə(r)/(n) a. người điều phối, điều phối viên b. hợp tác
c. kì thi tú tài d. trở lại
6. critical /ˈkrɪtɪkl/(adj) a. bàn tán
b. thuộc bình phẩm, phê bình c. kết hợp
d. tốt nghiệp 7. dean /diːn/(n)
a. lớp trưởng b. trưởng phòng
c. chủ nhiệm khoa (một trường đại học) d. trợ lý
8. eligible /ˈelɪdʒəbl/(adj) a. quản lý tốt
b. không hợp c. không vui
d. đủ tư cách, thích hợp 9. institution /ˌɪnstɪˈtjuːʃn/(n)
a. viện, trường đại học b. cao đẳng
c. trường cấp 1 d. trường mầm non 10. transcript /ˈtrænskrɪpt/(n)
a. học bạ, phiếu điểm b. khóa luận
c. tài liệu d. giấy khen 11. detect /dɪˈtekt/(v)
a. lạc quan
c. đáng sống d. tái tạo
2. Pre-test 2 and Post-Test:
Multiple-choice
1. city dweller /ˈsɪti - ˈdwelə(r)/ (n)
a. người sống ờ đô thị, cư dân thành thị b. người nông thôn
c. người vùng biển d. thành phố biển 2. detect /dɪˈtekt/(v)
a. dò tìm, phát hiện ra b. mò kim đáy biển c. tái tạo
d. bi quan
3. infrastructure /ˈɪnfrəstrʌktʃə(r)/(n) a. cơ sở hạ tầng
b. thị trấn c. thành phố d. nông thôn 4. liveable /ˈlɪvəbl/(a)
a. đáng sống b. lạc quan c. bi quan d. có thể tái tạo
5. optimistic /ˌɒptɪˈmɪstɪk/(a) a. lạc quan
b. hạnh phúc c. tức giận d. cáu gắt
a. rộng rãi b. xấu xí c. khó khăn
d. chật ních, đông nghẹt 7. pessimistic /ˌpɛsɪˈmɪstɪk/ (a)
a. bi quan b. lạc quan c. sang chảnh d. khéo léo
8. renewable /rɪˈnjuːəbl/(a) a. có thể tái tạo lại b. cân bằng
c. hoan hỉ d. lung linh
9. sustainable /səˈsteɪnəbl/(a)
a. không gây hại cho môi trường, có tính bển vững b. công bằng
c. khóa học d. bình tĩnh
10.urban planner /ˈɜːbən/ /ˈplænə/:
a. kế hoạch
b. người quy hoạch đô thị c. giáo sư
d. kỹ sư
11.urban sprawl /ˈɜrbən/ /sprɔl/
a. gió lốc đô thị b. đô thị hóa c. giáo án d. lốc xoáy
a. quy cho, được cho là b. đóng góp
c. hợp tác d. đầu tư
Matching:
1. natural remedy /ˌnætʃrəlˈremədi/ a. thuốc kê toa
2. archaeological /ˌɑːkiəˈlɒdʒɪkl/ b. nổi bật, rõ rệt, đặc trưng 3. meditation /ˌmedɪˈteɪʃn/ c. hệ miễn dịch
4. abundant /əˈbʌndənt/ d. thiền định
5. prescription medicine /prɪˈskrɪpʃn/ e. chất dinh dưỡng 6. immune system /ɪˈmjuːn sɪstəm/ f. không bị căng thẳng 7. dietary /ˈdaɪətəri/ g. thuộc về chế độ ăn uống 8. breath-taking /ˈbreθteɪkɪŋ h. thuộc về khảo cổ học
9. nutrition /njuˈtrɪʃn/ i. phương pháp trị liệu thiên nhiên 10. distinctive /dɪˈstɪŋktɪv/ j. chấp nhận, công nhận, thừa nhận 11. acknowledge /əkˈnɒlɪdʒ/ k. đẹp đến ngỡ ngàng
12. stress-free /stres - friː/ l. dồi dào, nhiều 3. Practice Tests by sessions
3.1. Lesson 1:
There are several practice tests in Quizlet; that the researcher cannot list here;
therefore, please click the link and enjoy the application “Quizlet” to understand clearly the practice process: https://quizlet.com/vn/699593480/lesson-1-flash-cards/?
i=2bz0d5&x=1jqY
1. abundant /əˈbʌndənt/(adj): dồi dào, nhiều
2. acknowledge /əkˈnɒlɪdʒ/(v): chấp nhận, công nhận, thừa nhận 3. archaeological /ˌɑːkiəˈlɒdʒɪkl/(a): thuộc về khảo cổ học 4. breath-taking /ˈbreθteɪkɪŋ/(a): đẹp đến ngỡ ngàng 5. distinctive /dɪˈstɪŋktɪv/(a): nổi bật, rõ rệt, đặc trưng 6. citadel /ˈsɪtədəl/(n): thành trì
8. comprise /kəmˈpraɪz/(v): bao gồm, gồm 3.2. Lesson 2:
There are several practice tests in Quizlet; that the researcher cannot list here;
therefore, please click the link and enjoy the application “Quizlet” to understand clearly the practice process: https://quizlet.com/vn/699594838/lesson-2-flash-cards/?
i=2bz0d5&x=1jqY
1. craftsman /ˈkrɑːftsmən/(n): thợ thủ công 2. cruise /kruːz/(n): chuyến du ngoạn trên biển 3. demolish /dɪˈmɒlɪʃ/(v): đổ sập, đánh sập 4. dynasty /ˈdɪnəsti/(n): triều đại
5. dome /dəʊm/(n): mái vòm
6. city dweller /ˈsɪti - ˈdwelə(r)/ (n): cư dân thành thị 7. detect /dɪˈtekt/(v): dò tìm, phát hiện ra
8. infrastructure /ˈɪnfrəstrʌktʃə(r)/(n): cơ sở hạ tầng 3.3. Lesson 3:
There are several practice tests in Quizlet; that the researcher cannot list here;
therefore, please click the link and enjoy the application “Quizlet” to understand clearly the practice process: https://quizlet.com/vn/699595409/lesson-3-flash-cards/?
i=2bz0d5&x=1jqY
1. emperor /ˈempərə(r)/(n): đế vương, nhà vua 2. endow /ɪnˈdaʊ/(v): cho tiền, tài sản
3. excavation /ˌekskəˈveɪʃn/(n): việc khai quật 4. liveable /ˈlɪvəbl/(a): đáng sống
5. optimistic /ˌɒptɪˈmɪstɪk/(a): lạc quan
6. overcrowded /ˌəʊvəˈkraʊdɪd/ (a): chật ních, đông nghẹt
8. renewable /rɪˈnjuːəbl/(a): có thể tái tạo lại 3.4. Lesson 4:
There are several practice tests in Quizlet; that the researcher cannot list here;
therefore, please click the link and enjoy the application “Quizlet” to understand clearly the practice process: https://quizlet.com/vn/699595937/lesson-4-flash-cards/?
i=2bz0d5&x=1jqY
1. sustainable /səˈsteɪnəbl/(a): không gây hại cho môi trường, có tính bển vững 2. urban planner /ˈɜːbən/ /ˈplænə/: người/chuyên gia quy hoạch đô thị
3. urban sprawl /ˈɜrbən/ /sprɔl/: sự mở rộng đô thị, đô thị hóa 4. attribute (+ to) /əˈtrɪbjuːt/: quy cho, được cho là
5. harmonious /hɑːˈməʊniəs/(a): hài hòa 6. imperial /ɪmˈpɪəriəl/(a): thuộc về hoàng tộc 7. in ruins /ˈruːɪn/ (idiom): bị phá hủy, đổ nát 8. intact /ɪnˈtækt/(a): nguyên vẹn, không bị hư tổn
3.5. Lesson 5:
There are several practice tests in Quizlet; that the researcher cannot list here;
therefore, please click the link and enjoy the application “Quizlet” to understand clearly the practice process: https://quizlet.com/vn/699596377/lesson-5-flash-cards/?
i=2bz0d5&x=1jqY
1. immune system /ɪˈmjuːn sɪstəm/ (n): hệ miễn dịch 2. meditation /ˌmedɪˈteɪʃn/(n): thiền định
3. natural remedy /ˌnætʃrəlˈremədi/: phương pháp trị liệu dựa vào thiên nhiên 4. prescription medicine /prɪˈskrɪpʃn - ˈmedsn/ (n): thuốc kê toa
5. islet /ˈaɪlət/(n): hòn đảo nhỏ
6. itinerary /aɪˈtɪnərəri/(n): lịch trình cho chuyến đi
8. outstanding /aʊtˈstændɪŋ/(a): nổi bật, xuất chúng 3. Tables
3.1. Table 1. Students’ initial levels of vocabulary knowledge after learning 2 months before the experimental period
Vocabulary knowledge levels
Understandin g
Group (N=13)
Control Experimental
No Misunderstanding = 100% 0 0
Great Understanding < 100% 0 0
Good Understanding ≤ 85% 0 0
Moderate Understanding ≤ 70% 1 2
Some Understanding ≤ 55% 7 4
Little to No Understanding ≤ 30% 4 7
3.2. Table 2. Students’ initial vocabulary retention after learning 2 months before the experimental period
Control group Experimental group
Student code Correct word
Vocabulary
Retention Student code Correct word
Vocabulary Retention
S1 7 64 S14 8 73
S2 6 55 S15 7 64
S3 6 55 S16 6 55
S4 5 45 S17 5 45
S5 4 36 S18 4 36
S6 5 45 S19 6 55
S7 5 45 S20 2 18
S8 4 36 S21 3 27
S9 3 27 S22 5 45
S10 6 55 S23 2 18
S11 2 18 S24 1 9
S12 1 9 S25 2 18
S13 2 18 S26 3 27
Average 56 39% Average 54 38%
3.3. Table 3. Students’ vocabulary retention after learning 1 hour
Student code Correct word
Vocabulary Retention
Student code
Correct word
Vocabulary Retention
S1 13 54 S14 11 46
S2 11 46 S15 9 38
S3 10 42 S16 13 54
S4 8 33 S17 10 42
S5 5 21 S18 8 33
S6 9 38 S19 11 46
S7 11 46 S20 9 38
S8 11 46 S21 5 21
S9 10 42 S22 8 33
S10 9 38 S23 6 25
S11 15 63 S24 13 54
S12 11 46 S25 10 42
S13 4 17 S26 11 46
Average 127 41% Average 124 40%
3.4. Table 4. Brief report about the number of students who made changes Group
Vocabulary retention (N=13) Increases Unchange
d
Decrease s
Control 1 11 1
Experimenta l
13 0 0
3.5. Table 5. Changes in students’ vocabulary knowledge levels after the research period
Vocabulary knowledge levels
Understandin g
Control group (N=13)
Experimental group (N=13) Befor
e After Before Afte r
No Misunderstanding = 100% 0 0 0 4
Good Understanding ≤ 85% 0 0 0 2
Moderate Understanding ≤ 70% 1 2 2 0
Some Understanding ≤ 55% 7 6 4 0
Little to No Understanding ≤ 30% 4 5 7 0
3.6. Table 6. Changes in vocabulary retention of individual students after 1 hour and after 2 months
Control group Experimental group
Student code
Before (%)
After (%)
Deviation (%)
Student code
Before (%)
After (%)
Deviation (%)
S1 54 58 5 S14 46 100 54
S2 46 50 3 S15 38 96 58
S3 42 33 -7 S16 54 100 46
S4 33 25 -8 S17 42 96 54
S5 21 21 0 S18 33 96 63
S6 38 38 0 S19 47 92 45
S7 46 54 8 S20 38 83 45
S8 46 38 -9 S21 21 88 67
S9 42 25 -17 S22 33 96 63
S10 38 42 4 S23 25 83 58
S11 63 58 -5 S24 54 100 46
S12 46 25 -21 S25 42 96 54
S13 17 21 4 S26 46 100 54
Averag
e 41%
38% Average 40% 94%
3.7. Table 7. Changes in vocabulary retention of individual students before and after 2 months
Control group Experimental group Student code Before
(%)
After
(%) Student code Before (%)
After (%)
S1 64 58 S14 73 100
S2 55 50 S15 64 96
S3 55 33 S16 55 100
S4 45 25 S17 45 96
S6 45 38 S19 55 92
S7 45 54 S20 18 83
S8 36 38 S21 27 88
S9 27 25 S22 45 96
S10 55 42 S23 18 83
S11 18 58 S24 9 100
S12 9 25 S25 18 96
S13 18 21 S26 27 100
Average 39% 38% Average 38% 94%
3.8. Table 8. Information from the practice of the experimental group by sessions The experimental group
Lesson
Session 1 2 3 4 5
Average
1 (1 day) 92 90 91 90 93 91
2 (3 days) 90 89 90 92 90 90
3 (7 days) 93 92 93 91 94 93
4 (16 days) 91 92 93 90 90 91
5 (30 days) 91 93 90 91 93 92
6 (60 days) 94 93 95 93 96 94
3.9. Table 9. Information from the practice of the control group by sessions The control group
Lesson
Session 1 2 3 4 5
Average
1 (1 day) 41 41 39 40 43 41
2 (3 days) 38 41 40 42 41 40
3 (7 days) 37 40 38 40 40 39
4 (16 days) 37 40 39 38 40 39
5 (30 days) 36 38 38 39 39 38
6 (60 days) 35 39 37 38 39 38
4. Figures
4.1. Figure 3. Ebbinghaus’s forgetting curve