| Appendix
5 : DEFINITIONS OF WRITTEN LANGUAGE CODING CRITERIA |
| Adjectives: |
A student's use of adjectives (excluding adjectives of colour) in
their writing was identified as being “frequent” (five or more adjectives)
'often” (three or four adjectives, “some” (one or two adjectives)
or “none” (no adjectives used.) |
| Consistency
of Handwriting: |
Students' handwriting
was viewed in terms of consistency of size, height and slope. Because
of variations in legibility of writing across any individual students'
work, line 5 only of every script was examined. From this example,
students' handwriting was identified as being “highly consistent”,
“usually consistent” or “inconsistent |
| Content: |
The degree to
which students kept to the topic of their recount was identified as
being “completely on the topic”, “usually on the topic (i.e. more
than half the time)”, sometimes on the topic (i.e. on the topic less
than half the time)”, or “off the topic”. |
| Impact: |
The way in which
the writer engaged audience interest through appropriate language
choices, including humour, interpretive comments) was examined. Writing
was identified as being “highly engaging”, “engaging”, “somewhat engaging”,
or having “little/no engagement”. |
| Justification: |
Students' writing
was considered for evidence of moving beyond a linear or chronological
sequence to include supporting detail, interpretive or qualifying
comments, or observations. Their writing was identified as being “highly
detailed”, “showing “some detail”, or showing “little/no detail”.
|
| Overall
Shape: |
Writing was examined
in terms of overall craft and sense of story, with opening and close
linked or connected. Writing was identified as being “highly crafted”,
showing evidence of “some crafting”, or showing “little/no crafting”. |
| Personal
Voice: |
Students' writing
was examined for evidence of a personal or sincere flavour. This was
identified in each script in terms of “high evidence” “some evidence”
or “little or no evidence”. |
| Punctuation: |
Students' writing
was examined for the correct placement of full stops and capital letters
at the beginnings and ends of sentences, in relation to the entire
piece. Students' punctuation was subsequently identified as being
“correct”, “usually correct”, “sometimes correct” or showing “little
or no evidence”. |
| Sentence
Construction: |
Writing was considered
according to the variety used in sentence openings and sentence constructions.
Overall, sentence construction was identified as being “highly varied”,
showing “some variety” or “little or no variety”. |
| Syntax: |
Students were
identified as being “correct”, “usually correct”, “sometimes correct”
or “incorrect” in their control of any or all of singular/plural agreements,
subject/verb agreements, consistent use of tense. |
| Vividness
of Language: |
A student's use
of verbs, nouns, adverbs, and/or figurative language to colour or
enliven their writing was identified as being “high” (five or more
instances) “moderate” (from one to four instances) or “basic” (no
evidence). (Basic language was identified as that which did not go
beyond the Spellwrite Essential Word List (Croft and Mapa 1998). |
