| Appendix
3 ; DEFINITIONS OF ORAL LANGUAGE CODING CATEGORIES |
| Breathing: |
The
manner in which students took in air and breathed out was noted, with
particular attention paid to audibility or obvious obstruction of
airways. Students were identified as having “clear”, “moderate' or
“congested/mouth” breathing. |
| Content: |
The number of
reasons a student gave for their selection was recorded, from “three
or more reasons” to “two reasons” to “one reason” to “little/no reason”.
|
| Dysfluencies:
|
Students were
identified in relation to the number of halts or interruptions which
broke the continuous flow of their speech. (These interruptions included
awkward breath breaks, false starts and hesitations. They did not
include reiterations or repetitions for emphasis.) Speech delivery
was identified as having “no interruptions”, “1-2 interruptions”,
“3-4 interruptions” or “5 or more interruptions”. |
| Fluency: |
Students were
identified as “consistently fluent”, “usually fluent” or “halting”
in their speech. |
| Justification:
|
Students were
identified according to their provision of substantiating comments
to support or expand their position. They were identified as providing
ideas that were “multiple and developed”, “relevant though not fully
developed”, “vague though on the right track” or “of little or no
relevance”. |
| Non-Verbal
Cues: |
Students' use
of eye contact, facial expression or gesture to gain attention, communicate
ideas, and obtain feedback was observed. Non-verbal cues were identified
as occurring “constantly”, “usually”, “sometimes” or “not evident”.
|
| Posture: |
Students were
observed in terms of their overall bearing and the relative position
of body parts (shoulders squared, head up, hands away from face) while
sitting. Posture was identified as being either “correct”, “adequate”
or “poor”. |
| Pronunciation: |
Students' pronunciation
was coded in relation to standard or accepted usage. (Elision or words,
assimilation of sounds or syllables, or mispronunciation were all
considered examples of mispronunciation in this context.) Students
were identified as using “correct”, “usually correct”, “sometimes
correct” or “poor” pronunciation. |
| Purpose: |
Students were
identified as being 'consistently”, “usually”, “sometimes” or “barely”
committed to the purpose of the discussion. |
| Sentence
Construction: |
Students were
identified according to their use of either complex sentences (main
clause joined to one or more subordinate clauses) or compound sentences
(two or more clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction) or elliptical
(minor) sentences (i.e. sentences/utterances in which part of the
structure has been omitted.) |
| Speech
Clarity: |
Students were
identified as using enunciation that was “consistently clear”, “usually
clear”, “sometimes clear” or “unclear”. |
| Speech
Fillers: |
Instances of
speech fillers in students' speech were counted and students were
identified as showing “no evidence”, “one or two instances”, “three
or four”, or five or more instances” of speech fillers used to fill
spaces between words or ideas in speech over the duration of their
task. |
| Syntax: |
Students were
identified as being “highly consistent”, “usually consistent” or having
“little/no consistency in their application of rules of syntax in
their speech. |
| Vividness: |
A student's use
of verbs, nouns, adverbs and/or figurative language to colour or enliven
their oral language was identified as being “high”, “moderate” or
“basic”. (Basic language was identified as that which did not go beyond
everyday usage.) |
