exposures to the distribution of responses was also assessed. The results are presented
Appendix 7.5. The same pattern is evident for each group across testing.
Table 7.8 Children’s responses in the naming task across testing
|
Post t |
est 1 |
Post test 2 |
Post t |
est 3 | ||
|
% |
n______ |
% |
n______ |
% |
n_____ | |
|
Don’t know |
27.9 |
87 |
16.3 |
51 |
14.4 |
75 |
|
Irrelevant responses |
0.3 |
1 |
0.3 |
1 |
0.4 |
2 |
|
Innovative word |
1.6 |
5 |
0.3 |
1 |
1.0 |
5 |
|
Phonological error |
7.05 |
22 |
8 |
25 |
5.1 |
27 |
|
Functional properties |
0.3 |
1 |
- |
- |
0.8 |
4 |
|
Perceptual properties |
0.6 |
2 |
0.3 |
1 |
- |
- |
|
Basic level word |
16.3 |
51 |
16 |
50 |
20.2 |
105 |
|
Superordinate level word |
- |
- |
3.5 |
11 |
3.1 |
16 |
|
Subordinate level word |
0.3 |
1 |
0.3 |
1 |
0.8 |
4 |
|
Target word____________ |
45.5 |
142 |
54,8 |
171 |
54.2 |
282 |
|
N of responses___________ |
312 |
312 |
520 | |||
Key findings from the naming task
Is there a differential impact of the type of exposure to new lexical items that the children
receive on their performance on the Naming task?
• No group differences were found during post test 1. During post tests 2 and 3, the
Definition group performed significantly better than the Ostensive definition group.
During post test 3 also, the Definition group performed significantly better than the
Control and Phonological control groups. The Lexical contrast and Ostensive
definition groups performed significantly better than the Control and Phonological
control groups.
Does children ,s performance on the naming task improve with increased exposure to the
lexical items ?
• The children performed better over time. The pattern was the same for each group.
Does the children ,s prior knowledge of the lexical items influence their performance on the
naming task?
• All the children (across testing) performed better on the naming task if they already
possessed a partial representation of the target words. The same was found for the
202
More intriguing information
1. CROSS-COMMODITY PERSPECTIVE ON CONTRACTING: EVIDENCE FROM MISSISSIPPI2. Impact of Ethanol Production on U.S. and Regional Gasoline Prices and On the Profitability of U.S. Oil Refinery Industry
3. Smith and Rawls Share a Room
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. Response speeds of direct and securitized real estate to shocks in the fundamentals
7. Input-Output Analysis, Linear Programming and Modified Multipliers
8. Menarchial Age of Secondary School Girls in Urban and Rural Areas of Rivers State, Nigeria
9. Valuing Access to our Public Lands: A Unique Public Good Pricing Experiment
10. On the Integration of Digital Technologies into Mathematics Classrooms