Analysis of children’s performance of the pre-test (multiple choice test) revealed that all the
children performed significantly better on the words describing animals than the words
describing artifacts (Wilcoxon: Z=3.5, p<.0005). When the analysis was repeated separately
for each group, the same pattern was found for the Lexical contrast (Wilcoxon: Z= 2.9,
p<.005) and Definition group (Wilcoxon: Z=2.1, p<.05).
To what extent does the child’s prior lexical knowledge (Comprehension and Naming)
influence performance on the Multiple choice task?”
Children with high level baseline comprehension vocabulary performed better than children
with low level comprehension vocabulary across testing however, the differences were not
significant. Separate analysis for each group demonstrated the same pattern, however no
significant differences were found.
Furthermore, children with high level baseline naming vocabulary performed significantly
better than those with low level baseline naming vocabulary across testing (Mann-Whitney
U, Pl: Z=2.4, p<.05; P2: Z=2.4, p<.05; P3: Z=2.1, p<.05). Separate analysis for each group
demonstrated the same pattern. Significant differences were found for the Definition group
during post test 2 (Mann-Whitney U: Z=I .9, p<.05).
Error Analysis
Responses on the multiple choice task were categorised into five categories which are
presented on Table 7.9.
Table 7.9 Responses in the multiple choice task
|
Responses___________ |
_______________Example__________________________ |
|
Don’t know |
when they said that they did not know the answer |
|
Phonological error |
when they pointed to the phonological foil picture |
|
Semantic error |
when they pointed to the semantic foil picture |
|
Irrelevant error |
when they pointed to the irrelevant foil picture |
|
Target word_________ |
when they pointed to the target word’s picture_____________ |
The distribution of the responses to the sample was investigated. Table 7.10 presents the
results. Children’s performance for all the target words together is presented, since their
performance did not differ by target item.
207
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. Evidence of coevolution in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. A Principal Components Approach to Cross-Section Dependence in Panels
10. APPLYING BIOSOLIDS: ISSUES FOR VIRGINIA AGRICULTURE