To what extent does the child’s prior lexical knowledge (Comprehension and Naming)
influence the provision of animal contrasts in the Contrast taskT,
The provision of contrasts did not differ significantly by the level Ofbaseline comprehension
vocabulary. The same pattern was found for each group. On the other hand, children with
high baseline naming vocabulary provided more contrasts than children with low baseline
naming vocabulary across testing. Significant differences were found for post test 2 (Mann-
Whitney U: Z=2.7, p<.05) and post test 3 (Mann-Whitney U: Z=2.2, p<.0005). The analysis
was repeated separately for each group. The same pattern was found for all the groups.
Significant differences were found for the Lexical contrast group in post test 2 (Mann-
Whitney U: Z=2.2, p<.05).
Qualitative analysis
Children provided different types of contrasts which are presented in Table 7.15 below.
Table 7.15 Types of contrasts provided in the contrast task
|
Justifications_____________ |
____________Example__________________________ |
|
Don’t know |
No responses were provided |
|
Animals contrast |
E.g. “The ostrich is different from an elephant” |
|
Cutlery contrast |
E.g. “The ladle is different from a spoon ” |
|
Furniture contrast |
E.g. “The stool is different from a chair” |
|
Other contrasts_________ |
________Contrast with items from other semantic categories |
Examination of the distribution of children’s contrasts for each target word over time was
carried out. The table in Appendix 7.7 presents the results. From the responses given, it is
evident that the children provided appropriate contrasts for each target word. These contrasts
were mainly semantic. For example, for the ostrich and the mole they provided contrasts with
animals, e.g “the ostrich is different from a duck” or “the mole is different from the badger”
while for the ladle contrasts were made with cutlery, “the ladle is different from a spoon” and
for the stool contrasts were made with other furniture, e.g “the stool is different from a
chair”.
Statistical analysis revealed that the children provided significantly more animal contrasts for
the ostrich and the mole than for the other words across testing (Pl: X2=26.4 , df=3,
p<.0000; P2: X2 =16.3 df=3, p<.005; P3: X2=34.3 df=3, p<.0000). They also provided
significantly more cutlery contrasts for the ladle than for the other words (Pl: X2= 12.5, df=3,
255
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. Cyber-pharmacies and emerging concerns on marketing drugs Online
5. Migrating Football Players, Transfer Fees and Migration Controls
6. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES
7. A novel selective 11b-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 inhibitor prevents human adipogenesis
8. The Impact of Financial Openness on Economic Integration: Evidence from the Europe and the Cis
9. The name is absent
10. Short report "About a rare cause of primary hyperparathyroidism"