7.4.3 Overall word learning and between measures comparison
7.4.3.1 Is there a differential impact of the type of exposure to new lexical items
that the children receive on the overall word learning ?
In the previous analyses children’s word learning was investigated by analysing children’s
performance in each task separately. In this subsection, children’s word learning was
investigated by exploring their performance in all the post test tasks. A composite score was
constructed to investigate the previous question. Each child could score a maximum of 32
(8 tasks * 4 items).
Three One Way Analyses of Variance were carried out, with group as the independent
variable and the composite score for word learning as the dependent variable. Children’s
word learning varied significantly by the type of exposure across testing [Pl :F(2,75) =10.2,
p<.0005];[ P2: F(2,75) =39.3, p<.0000]; [P3: F(4,125) = 38.1, p<.0000]. Table 7.19 presents
the means by group across testing.
Table 7.19 Children’s overall word learning (means & sds) by group across testing
Post test 1 |
Post test 2 |
Post test 3 | ||||
Control |
12.4 |
(5.3) | ||||
Phono.Control |
14.3 |
(5.6) | ||||
Oste. Definition |
13.04 |
(4.7) |
13.5 |
(4.6) |
16.04 |
(5.9) |
Lex-Contrast |
16.1 |
(4.6) |
18.5 |
(4.9) |
21.6 |
(4.2) |
Definition |
18.6 |
(3.8) |
24.2 |
(3-І) |
26.7 |
(2.1) |
Post-hoc analysis for post test 1 revealed that the Definition and the Lexical contrast group
performed significantly better than the Ostensive definition group. Post-hoc analysis for post
test 2 revealed the same pattern as before as well as that the Definition group performed
significantly better than the Lexical contrast group.
During post test 3, no significant differences were found between the Control and
Phonological control group as well as between the Phonological control and the Ostensive
definition group. On the other hand, the Control group performed significantly worse than
the Ostensive definition (Wilcoxon: Z=2.03, p<.05), the Lexical contrast (Wilcoxon: Z=5.1,