A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

errors (for example, target -FEETOKEL, response = FEETOKIL; target - SARTLE,
response = SARTINE).
Table 5.19
C5’s detailed performance on learning new vocabulary
Assessment (type) Raw score Assessment (type) Raw score
IR DR IR DR
CR – NAME (S) 11 3 Read aloud (R) 19 17
CR – NAME (W) 14 10 W-P match – NAME (L) 18 8
CR – SKILL (S/W) 2 0 W-P match – NAME (R) 14 12
CR – HABITAT (S/W) 6 6 W-P match – SKILL (L) 11 10
CR – FOOD (S/W) 10 6 W-P match – SKILL (R) 8 10
Recognition (L) 17 17 Categorisation–
12 8
HABITAT/FOOD (P)
Recognition (R) 18 17 Categorisation–
10 5
HABITAT/FOOD (R)
P-S match (P) 14 17
Syllable completion (R) 15 13 TOTAL SCORE 199 159
Interference from previous sessions was also mirrored in the written task.
Occasionally, C5 was unable to write certain letters during written recall tasks,
despite being able to name and write them accurately for previous words e.g.
‘how do you write a zed?’ ‘I want to put an ‘i’ in but can’t remember how to do it’
and repeating letters under his breath at times. C5 recognised 17 words when
heard in spoken form (for which he made one false positive response) and 18
words in written form (for which he made two false positive responses). He
demonstrated further learning through matching the initial syllables for 15 words
with their final syllables. Additionally, C5 matched 18 names to images
(listening) and 14 (reading) further demonstrating knowledge of the new words.
5.10.2.2 Delayed recall
C5 retrieved three new words in spoken form and required 20 syllable cues to
aid recall. He recalled ten words in written form making six spelling errors.
Although C5 correctly recognised 17 creature names during the listening and
reading tasks, he made five false positives (listening) and two false positives for
185