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. Fertility in Developing Countries2. Regional dynamics in mountain areas and the need for integrated policies
3. Developmental changes in the theta response system: a single sweep analysis
4. Higher education funding reforms in England: the distributional effects and the shifting balance of costs
5. Three Strikes and You.re Out: Reply to Cooper and Willis
6. A Critical Examination of the Beliefs about Learning a Foreign Language at Primary School
7. Imitation in location choice
8. The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke
9. Policy Formulation, Implementation and Feedback in EU Merger Control
10. The name is absent