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. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES2. Performance - Complexity Comparison of Receivers for a LTE MIMO–OFDM System
3. Party Groups and Policy Positions in the European Parliament
4. Distortions in a multi-level co-financing system: the case of the agri-environmental programme of Saxony-Anhalt
5. Sector Switching: An Unexplored Dimension of Firm Dynamics in Developing Countries
6. DISCUSSION: ASSESSING STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN THE DEMAND FOR FOOD COMMODITIES
7. The name is absent
8. Modeling industrial location decisions in U.S. counties
9. Cultural Diversity and Human Rights: a propos of a minority educational reform
10. KNOWLEDGE EVOLUTION