A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

written form again without the aid of cues and made three spelling errors (e.g.
FEETOKIN instead of FEETOKEL and VINTROP instead of VINTROK).
5.5.2.2 Delayed recall
As presented in Table 5.9, C1 recalled 14 of the newly learned words in spoken
form requiring two phonemic and 11 syllable cues to aid recall. Six of these cues
were successful. C1 also recalled 14 of these words in written form where she
repeated the words / syllables under her breath a number of times to facilitate
the spelling of words. C1 could however accurately match all 20 creature names
and skills to their images (listening and reading) and completed all 20 syllables,
indicating that she had in fact learned all 20 creatures but required more
information to aid recall for some words. In the assessment sessions C1
demonstrated word-finding difficulties in particular for the already familiar words
of the creature skills and used other words to describe some of them (e.g. ‘reads
minds’ for ‘telepathic’, ‘whirling up storms’ for ‘creates storms’).
5.5.2.3 Summary of new learning
As predicted, C1 demonstrated the learning of the vocabulary achieving 99% of
information correct for immediate recall assessments. She demonstrated longterm
retention of this learning recalling 82% for delayed recall tasks,
remembering 83% of information originally recalled. C1 had demonstrated
difficulty spelling non-words in baseline measures, for example, target – NAR,
response = NRVN, target – SMODE, response = SMEI. Although predicted that
C1 would have difficulty spelling non-words only 15% of written naming
contained errors and these were closer to target words than non-word errors at
baseline, for example, target FEETOKEL, response = FEETOKIN, target –
VINTROK, response = VINTROP. This suggests that some of these new words
were now stored as ‘familiar’ words in her lexicon.
156