A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

(SPSS for Windows, 2003). A significant difference was found between the
ability to learn the new word forms and the ability to learn the new skills, with
more accurate responses for new word forms – F (1, 10) = 7.984, p=.011. Oneway
ANOVA was conducted on the number of items learned using type of recall
as a factor with two levels (spoken and written recall) (SPSS for Windows,
2003). No significant difference was found between spoken and written recall
performance – F (1, 10) = .002, p= .967.
3.2.2.2 Delayed recall
Table 3.2
Preliminary Study One
Total raw scores for delayed recall
(spoken , multiple-choice of names and skills and word-picture matching of names)
Participant Gender Age Spoken Multiplechoice
Word-Picture
matching
Name Skill Name Skill Name
PS 1 Male 28;01 1 5 10 10 8
PS 2 Male 39;02 0 0 9 10 9
PS 3 Female 32;05 0 1 9 9 10
PS 4 Male 53;09 1 0 9 8 5
PS 5 Female 24;11 0 2 9 10 10
PS 6 Male 37;05 0 3 8 10 3
PS 7 Female 41;08 0 0.5 7 9 10
PS 8 Female 39;05 1 1.5 10 10 10
PS 9 Female 41;04 0 0 9 10 3
PS 10 Male 25;09 2 2 10 10 9
* PS1 = Preliminary subject 1 etc.
Table 3.2 presents the total recall scores for both male and female participants
for the delayed recall of new word forms and associative meanings. This data
represents the retention of the new vocabulary learned from the training session.
As with the immediate recall scores there was variability in participant ability to
recall the newly learned vocabulary, ranging from 0 to 2 word forms and 0 to 5
associative meanings recalled each from a possible maximum of 10. This range
79