A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

Table 5.31
C11’s detailed performance on learning new vocabulary
Assessment (type) Raw score Assessment (type) Raw score
IR DR IR DR
CR – NAME (S) 0 Read aloud (R) 0
CR – NAME (W) 0 W-P match – NAME (L) 1
CR – SKILL (S/W) 0 W-P match – NAME (R) 8
CR – HABITAT (S/W) 0 W-P match – SKILL (L) 3
CR – FOOD (S/W) 0 W-P match – SKILL (R) 4
Recognition (L) 9 Categorisation–
5
HABITAT/FOOD (P)
Recognition (R) 3 Categorisation–
4
HABITAT/FOOD (R)
P-S match (P) 8
Syllable completion (R) 4 TOTAL SCORE 49
5.16.2.2 Summary of new learning
C11 recalled 15% of information for immediate recall assessments. As with
participants C9 and C10 the element of chance was considered with such a low
performance score. Three words in particular suggested that they were learned
rather than the result of random choice – LUNDRIL, SARTLE AND TRAIGOL.
C11 matched the new words LUNDRIL and SARTLE to the correct picture for
both listening and reading tasks and matched LUNDRIL’s initial syllable with its
correct final syllable. C11 also matched the new word TRAIGOL with its picture
for the reading task and its skill for listening and reading modalities as well as its
habitat and food for the reading task. This suggests that C11 was able to
demonstrate that she had learned some of the new vocabulary despite severe
language impairment.
216