A researcher conducted a study comparing two approaches to vocabulary instruction in middle school classrooms. Traditional instruction involved indivi...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
A researcher conducted a study comparing two approaches to vocabulary instruction in middle school classrooms. Traditional instruction involved individual study with flashcards and memorization exercises, while collaborative instruction used group discussions and peer teaching activities. The researcher measured average study session length and break frequency during 30-minute instruction periods. Students using traditional instruction averaged 18.3 minutes of focused study time with 3.2 minutes of break time per session. Students in collaborative instruction averaged 14.7 minutes of focused study time with 5.8 minutes of break time per session. The researcher hypothesized that students in individual-focused traditional instruction would demonstrate longer sustained attention periods and require shorter breaks compared to those in collaborative instruction.
Which choice best describes data from the study that support the researcher's hypothesis?
The traditional instruction students had longer focused study periods and shorter break times than the collaborative instruction students did.
The traditional instruction students and collaborative instruction students both maintained focus for substantial portions of each session.
The collaborative instruction students' break periods lasted nearly six minutes, while the traditional instruction students' breaks were much shorter.
The traditional instruction students had more total study time than break time, demonstrating the effectiveness of individual-focused methods.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| A researcher conducted a study comparing two approaches to vocabulary instruction in middle school classrooms. |
|
| Traditional instruction involved individual study with flashcards and memorization exercises, while collaborative instruction used group discussions and peer teaching activities. |
|
| The researcher measured average study session length and break frequency during 30-minute instruction periods. |
|
| Students using traditional instruction averaged 18.3 minutes of focused study time with 3.2 minutes of break time per session. |
|
| Students in collaborative instruction averaged 14.7 minutes of focused study time with 5.8 minutes of break time per session. |
|
| The researcher hypothesized that students in individual-focused traditional instruction would demonstrate longer sustained attention periods and require shorter breaks compared to those in collaborative instruction. |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: A researcher compared traditional and collaborative vocabulary instruction methods by measuring study time and break patterns, hypothesizing that traditional instruction would lead to longer sustained attention and shorter breaks.
Argument Flow: The passage establishes a study comparing two vocabulary teaching approaches, explains how data was measured, presents the actual results for both groups, and concludes with the researcher's hypothesis about which method would be more effective for sustained attention.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
This is a fill-in-the-blank question asking us to choose the best logical connector. The answer must create the right relationship between what comes before and after the blank.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The researcher's hypothesis was that traditional instruction students would have longer sustained attention periods AND shorter breaks compared to collaborative instruction students
- We need to find data that shows both parts of this prediction came true
- From our passage analysis, we know:
- Traditional students: 18.3 minutes focused study, 3.2 minutes breaks
- Collaborative students: 14.7 minutes focused study, 5.8 minutes breaks
- The data shows traditional students had MORE study time (18.3 vs 14.7) and LESS break time (3.2 vs 5.8), which is exactly what the hypothesis predicted
- The right answer should mention that traditional students outperformed collaborative students in both measures - longer focus time and shorter breaks
The traditional instruction students had longer focused study periods and shorter break times than the collaborative instruction students did.
- This choice directly states what the data shows: traditional students had longer focused study periods (18.3 vs 14.7 minutes) AND shorter break times (3.2 vs 5.8 minutes)
- This matches both parts of the researcher's hypothesis perfectly
- Uses the exact language that captures what 'supports the hypothesis' means
The traditional instruction students and collaborative instruction students both maintained focus for substantial portions of each session.
- This choice says both groups maintained focus for substantial portions, which doesn't compare them
- The researcher's hypothesis was specifically about which group would do BETTER, not whether both did well
- What trap this represents: Students might think any mention of focus time supports the hypothesis, but the hypothesis requires a comparison showing traditional instruction is superior
The collaborative instruction students' break periods lasted nearly six minutes, while the traditional instruction students' breaks were much shorter.
- This choice only mentions break times, not the sustained attention part of the hypothesis
- While it's true that collaborative students had longer breaks, it misses half of what the hypothesis predicted
- The researcher predicted BOTH longer attention spans AND shorter breaks for traditional instruction
The traditional instruction students had more total study time than break time, demonstrating the effectiveness of individual-focused methods.
- This choice compares study time to break time within the traditional group, not between the two groups
- The hypothesis was about comparing traditional vs. collaborative instruction, not about whether traditional students study more than they break