Figure 7.17 Total number of appropriate justifications provided in the association task
by group across testing
fH Oste.Definition H Lex-Contrast
I I Definition
Is there a differential impact of the type of exposure to new lexical items that the children
receive on the provision of appropriate justifications?
Children’s provision of appropriate justifications (see design section) differed significantly
by group during post test 3 (Kruskal-Wallis I-Way ANOVA: X2= 21.9, df = 4, p<.0005).
No significant differences were found for post tests 1 and 2. Particularly as diagram 7.7
shows, during post test 3 the Ostensive definition group provided significantly more
justifications than the Control group (Wilcoxon: Z=2.9, p<.005); the Lexical contrast group
provided significantly more justifications than the Control group (Wilcoxon: Z=3.5,
p<.0000) and the Definition group provided significantly more justifications than the Control
group (Wilcoxon: Z=3.2, p<.0000) .Furthermore, the Definition group provided significantly
more justifications than the Phonological control (Wilcoxon: Z=4.3, P<.000) and Ostensive
definition group (Wilcoxon, Z=4.1, p<.000).
Diagram 7.7 Significant group differences in the provision of justifications in the
Abbreviations: C=Control PC∕Phono.Co= Phonological control; Ostdefin-=Ostensive definition; Lex. contr. Lexical contrast
238
More intriguing information
1. Notes on an Endogenous Growth Model with two Capital Stocks II: The Stochastic Case2. The name is absent
3. Growth and Technological Leadership in US Industries: A Spatial Econometric Analysis at the State Level, 1963-1997
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. IMMIGRATION POLICY AND THE AGRICULTURAL LABOR MARKET: THE EFFECT ON JOB DURATION
9. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON VIRGINIA DAIRY FARMS
10. Review of “The Hesitant Hand: Taming Self-Interest in the History of Economic Ideas”