A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

had articulation errors. P3 also recalled 19 of the new words in written form,
requiring only one letter cue.
Table 5.11
P3’s detailed performance on learning new vocabulary
Assessment (type) Raw score Assessment (type) Raw score
IR DR IR DR
CR – NAME (S) 18 3 / 12 Read aloud (R) 17
CR – NAME (W) 19 11 W-P match – NAME (L) 20 14
CR – SKILL (S/W) 9 0 W-P match – NAME (R) 20 16
CR – HABITAT (S/W) 20 0 W-P match – SKILL (L) 18 10
CR – FOOD (S/W) 20 0 W-P match – SKILL (R) 20 8
Recognition (L) 20 20 Categorisation–
18 5
HABITAT/FOOD (P)
Recognition (R) 20 19 Categorisation–
15 4
HABITAT/FOOD (R)
P-S match (P) 16
Syllable completion (R) 16 17 TOTAL SCORE 253 160/
169
5.6.2.2 Delayed recall
As can be seen on Table 5.11, P3 initially only recalled three of the 20 newly
learned words in spoken form during the delayed cold recall tasks despite
receiving 19 syllable cues. However, while performing the habitat and food
picture categorisation task he began to name the creatures spontaneously
retrieving 12 of these 20 correctly. He was given 16 cues in total to aid retrieval.
P3 recalled 11 of the new words in written form. P3 could however accurately
match 14 (listening) and 16 (reading) creature names to their images indicating
that he had learned more characteristics of the new words than demonstrated
through naming tasks alone but required additional information about the new
words to aid recall for some of the new vocabulary.
5.6.2.3 Summary of new learning
As predicted P3 was able to demonstrate the learning of new word forms and
meanings achieving 90% of information correct for immediate recall
assessments. He demonstrated that some of this information was retained in
long-term memory as he recalled 53% of information for delayed recall tasks,
161