Comparison of children’s performance between the two post tests within each linguistic
condition revealed the same pattern.
To what extent does children ,s performance on the definition task differ by their existing
vocabulary?
No significant differences were found in children’s performance on the definition task by
their existing vocabulary (see Table in Appendix 5.9) and linguistic condition.
To what extent does children’s performance on the definition task differ by their
phonological memory?
Children with high phonological memory performed significantly better than children with
low phonological memory during the Immediate post test (Mann-Whitney: Z=2.2, p<.05) (see
Table in Appendix 5.10). A trend for significance was found during the delayed post test. The
same pattern was found within each age group and linguistic condition. Significant
differences were found for the Lexical contrast condition (Mann-Whitney: Z=1.8, p<.05) in
the immediate post test.
Error Analysis
An Error analysis was carried out to identify the different types of properties mentioned in
children’s definitions. These are presented in Table 5.11 below.
|
Table 5.11 Properties mentioned in children’s definitions___________________________ | |
|
Properties_________________ |
_________________Description__________________________________ |
|
Don’t know |
If no attempt was made by the child to define the word |
|
Irrelevant responses |
When the child made an attempt to define the object but this |
|
Perceptual properties |
Mention of perceptual properties e.g., “it is long and brown |
|
Functional properties |
Mention of functional properties e.g. “you play a song” for the |
|
Basic level word |
Use of a basic level word from the same category, e.g. “ a |
|
Superordinate level word |
Use of a superordinate level word, e.g. “musical instrument” |