| This
section discusses the statistical findings of the study. Student
performance is examined by gender and by year group for each of
the following: oral language, written language, grammar knowledge,
students' attitude to writing, and the interrelationship between
oral and written language performance. Student performance by ethnic
group and by school decile band are also discussed. Within each
section, tables are used to show frequency distributions and student
mean scores. Where appropriate, T-tests, chi square tests and analyses
of variance are used to further analyse data. |
| |
| 2.1
ORAL LANGUAGE PERFORMANCE |
|
(i) Deeper Features |
| |
(a)
Impact/Purpose
Year 4 students were more varied in their language fluency than the
year 8 group. Year 4 students were also more forthcoming orally than
their older counterparts. However, the spread of performance in relation
to engaging in actively purposeful discussion was very similar across
both year groups. At both year levels there was a small percentage
of students who showed little or no evidence of contributing to the
purpose of the discussion. |
| |
|
(b)
Content and Ideas
There was little appreciable difference in the strengths of oral justifications
offered by students at either year level. Less than a quarter of students
at Year 4 or Year 8 could provide full and well-developed justifications
for their picture selections. Many students responded to the questions
in this task at only a surface level, and almost half of the students
at each year level gave responses that were judged to be only vaguely
on the right track (48.3% at Year 4 and 38.4% at Year 8). The percentage
of students who gave at best a minimal response (i.e. those students
whose answers were either on the right track but vague, or those who
were unable to defend their ideas at all) was 53.1% at Year 4 and
40% at Year 8. Only 22.5% of students at Year 4 and 24.6% at Year
8 consistently responded in a full or detailed fashion. |
| |
| |
(c)
Structure / Organisation of Responses
At
Year 4, 64.5% of students used only elliptical sentences in their
responses. This percentage was a little lower for Year 8 students
at 52.3%. Of more interest perhaps is that 35.4% of Year 4 students
and 47.6% of Year 8 students (i.e. between a third and a half of each
year group) used the more formal construction of a complete sentence
at least once in their responses during the viewing task. A detailed
examination of the structures of these responses will be discussed
in more detail in Sections 3 and 4 of this report. |
|
|
| |
(d)
Language
There were no marked differences in language performance for either
year group. |
|
| (ii)
Surface Features |
| |
(a)
Speech fillers, Pronunciation, Non-verbal cues.
A high overall incidence of speech fillers (e.g. like, yeah, well,
like yeah) was found to at Year 8 level and this difference was statistically
significant from Year 4 level (t= 2.5, DF = 125, p = < .05). The consistent
use of standard pronunciation was found to be largely similar across
year groups (27% at Year 4, 28% at Year 8). By contrast, the incidence
of non-verbal behaviour (hand gestures, eye contact, etc.) was found
to be much more frequent at Year 4 than at Year 8 level. This was
statistically significant (t= -2.1, DF = 125, p < .05). (Further discussion
and analysis of students' use of deictic expressions will be covered
in Section 3.) |
| |
|
| |
(b)
Speech clarity, Breathing, Posture, Syntax
Clarity of speech was found to improve markedly from Year 4 to Year
8. Whereas at Year 4, 47% of students produced speech that was either
“clear” or “usually clear”, by Year 8 this had risen significantly,
and 66% of students produced speech that was “clear” or “usually clear”.
This overall improvement was found to be statistically significant
(t = 2.5, DF = 125, p = < .05). The posture of Year 8 students was
also markedly improved over that of the Year 4 students and this improvement
was found to be statistically significant (t= 2.8, DF = 125, p < .01).
|
| |
|
| |
(c)
Variations across Gender
No statistically significant differences were found when comparing
the performances of males and females at Year 4 (see Table 2). At
Year 8 there were no statistically significant differences by gender
within the deeper features of oral language. When considering the
surface features, some differences did emerge. Year 8 females used
non-verbal cues more frequently than their male peers. The mean
score for non-verbal cues for males was significantly lower than
for females (see Table 3). The speech of Year 8 male students was
interrupted by breath breaks more frequently than that of their
female counterparts and this was statistically significant (t =
2.2, DF = 56, p < .05). Mean performance scores show that the clarity
of speech of the Year 8 females was higher than that of their male
peers, while good posture was found to be more consistent among
Year 8 males than Year 8 females.
A comparison
of overall oral language performance across Year 4 and Year 8 students
showed some small improvements in surface features (speech habits,
pronunciation, non-verbal cues, clarity, breathing, posture) by
age, but no marked improvement in the deeper features of oral language
- impact, purpose, content, ideas, language. Year 8 students were
somewhat more likely to respond in complete sentences and to use
formal grammatical structures in their responses than were the Year
4 students. While there was some variation in performance by gender
(noted above), there were no overall sustained differences in performance
across gender. |
| |
|
Table
1: Frequency Distribution and Mean Levels of Oral Language Performance
by Year Group |
| |
| |
|
Year
4 |
Year
8 |
| |
Variables |
high |
|
|
low |
x |
high |
|
|
low |
x |
|
Deeper
Features |
Impact/Purpose
|
| Fluency |
26 |
39 |
35 |
^ |
2.0 |
11 |
60 |
29 |
^ |
2.1 |
| Attitude |
26 |
34 |
32 |
8 |
2.2 |
25 |
37 |
35 |
3 |
2.1 |
|
Content/Ideas |
| Content
(Q. 3 only) |
10 |
15 |
68 |
8 |
2.4 |
6 |
37 |
45 |
12 |
2.3 |
| Justification |
23 |
24 |
48 |
5 |
2.3 |
25 |
35 |
38 |
2 |
2.1 |
Structure/Organisation |
| Construction
of Utterance |
2 |
34 |
65 |
^ |
2.6 |
8 |
32 |
60 |
^ |
2.5 |
| Syntactic
complexity |
5 |
37 |
58 |
^ |
2.5 |
6 |
42 |
52 |
^ |
2.4 |
Language |
| Vividness
of Language |
0 |
29 |
71 |
^ |
2.7 |
5 |
23 |
71 |
2 |
2.7 |
| Adjective
Count |
2 |
5 |
34 |
60 |
3.5 |
2 |
3 |
45 |
51 |
3.4 |
|
Surface
Features |
Presentation
|
| Speech
Habits |
44 |
31 |
21 |
5 |
1.8 |
31 |
23 |
29 |
17 |
2.2* |
| Pronunciation |
27 |
50 |
21 |
2 |
2.0 |
28 |
31 |
35 |
6 |
2.2 |
| Non-verbal
cues |
34 |
37 |
19 |
10 |
2.0* |
22 |
31 |
32 |
15 |
2.4 |
| Dysfluencies |
21 |
34 |
24 |
21 |
2.4 |
14 |
28 |
32 |
26 |
2.7 |
| Speech
clarity |
8 |
39 |
44 |
10 |
2.5 |
22 |
45 |
28 |
6 |
2.1** |
| Breathing |
60 |
11 |
29 |
^ |
1.7 |
63 |
15 |
22 |
^ |
1.6 |
| Posture |
24 |
61 |
15 |
^ |
1.9 |
51 |
40 |
9 |
^ |
1.6* |
| Syntax
correct |
63 |
31 |
5 |
^ |
1.7 |
77 |
15 |
8 |
^ |
1.8 |
*
p < .05 **p < .01 ***p< .001 ****p< .0001
^ For these items there were only three categories
on the coding sheet
|
|
| |
|
Table
2: Frequency Distribution and Mean Levels of Oral Language Performance
by Gender (Year 4). |
| |
| |
|
Year
4 Male |
Year
4 Female |
| |
Variables |
high |
|
|
low |
x |
high |
|
|
low |
x |
Deeper
Features |
Impact/Purpose |
| Fluency |
28 |
31 |
41 |
^ |
2.1 |
23 |
47 |
30 |
^ |
2.0 |
| Attitude |
22 |
38 |
31 |
9 |
2.2 |
30 |
30 |
33 |
7 |
2.1 |
Content/ideas |
| Content
(Q. 3 only) |
16 |
13 |
63 |
9 |
2.7 |
3 |
17 |
73 |
7 |
2.8 |
| Justification |
16 |
25 |
53 |
6 |
2.5 |
30 |
23 |
43 |
3 |
2.2 |
Structure/Organisation |
| Construction
of Utterance |
0 |
25 |
75 |
^ |
2.7 |
0 |
30 |
70 |
^ |
2.7 |
| Syntactic
Complexity |
66 |
28 |
6 |
^ |
1.4 |
63 |
33 |
3 |
^ |
1.4 |
Language |
| Vividness
of Language |
0 |
28 |
72 |
^ |
2.7 |
0 |
30 |
70 |
^ |
2.7 |
| Adjective
Count |
0 |
6 |
38 |
56 |
3.5 |
3 |
3 |
30 |
64 |
3.5 |
Surface
Features |
Presentation |
Speech
Habits |
41 |
31 |
25 |
3 |
1.9 |
47 |
30 |
17 |
7 |
1.8 |
Pronunciation |
28 |
53 |
16 |
3 |
1.9 |
27 |
47 |
27 |
0 |
2.0 |
Non-verbal
cues |
31 |
41 |
13 |
16 |
2.1 |
37 |
33 |
27 |
3 |
1.9 |
Dysfluencies |
22 |
25 |
28 |
25 |
2.6 |
20 |
43 |
20 |
17 |
2.3 |
Speech
clarity |
9 |
34 |
44 |
13 |
2.6 |
7 |
43 |
43 |
7 |
2.5 |
Breathing |
53 |
12.5 |
34 |
^ |
|
67 |
10 |
23 |
^ |
1.6 |
Posture |
31 |
53 |
16 |
^ |
1.8 |
17 |
70 |
13 |
^ |
1.9 |
Syntax
Correct |
66 |
28 |
6 |
^ |
1.4 |
63 |
33 |
3 |
^ |
1.4 |
Note:
There were no significant differences in performance across
gender at Year 4 level.
^ For these items there were only three categories on the coding
sheet |
|
| |
|
Table
3: Frequency Distribution and Mean Levels of Oral Language Performance
by Gender (Year 8). |
| |
| |
|
Year
8 Male |
Year
8 Female |
| |
Variables |
high |
|
|
low |
x |
high |
|
|
low |
x |
Deeper
Features |
Impact/Purpose |
| Fluency |
9 |
56 |
34 |
^ |
2.2 |
12 |
64 |
24 |
^ |
2.1 |
| Attitude |
28 |
34 |
31 |
6 |
2.1 |
21 |
39 |
39 |
0 |
2.2 |
|
Content/ideas |
| Content
(Q.3 only) |
6 |
28 |
53 |
12.5 |
2.7 |
6 |
45 |
36 |
12 |
2.5 |
| Justification |
22 |
28 |
47 |
3 |
2.3 |
27 |
42 |
30 |
0 |
2.0 |
|
Structure/Organisation |
| Construction
of Utterance |
6 |
28 |
66 |
^ |
2.6 |
9 |
36 |
55 |
^ |
2.5 |
| Syntactic
Complexity |
6 |
38 |
56 |
^ |
2.5 |
6 |
45 |
48 |
^ |
2.4 |
| Language
|
| Vividness
of Language |
6 |
19 |
75 |
0 |
2.7 |
3 |
27 |
67 |
3 |
2.7 |
| Adjective
Count |
3 |
6 |
41 |
50 |
3.4 |
0 |
0 |
48 |
51.5 |
3.5 |
Surface
Features |
Presentation |
| Speech
Habits |
41 |
16 |
25 |
19 |
2.2 |
21 |
30 |
33 |
15 |
2.4 |
| Pronunciation |
25 |
31 |
38 |
6 |
2.2 |
30 |
30 |
33 |
6 |
2.1 |
| Non-verbal
cues |
13 |
25 |
41 |
22 |
2.7* |
30 |
36 |
24 |
9 |
2.1 |
| Dysfluencies |
13 |
19 |
34 |
34 |
2.9 |
15 |
36 |
30 |
18 |
2.5 |
| Speech
clarity |
19 |
38 |
31 |
13 |
2.3 |
24 |
52 |
24 |
0 |
2.0** |
| Breathing |
56 |
22 |
22 |
^ |
1.7 |
70 |
9 |
21 |
^ |
1.5 |
| Posture |
53 |
37 |
9 |
^ |
1.6 |
48 |
42 |
9 |
^ |
1.6 |
| Syntax
correct |
63 |
33 |
3 |
^ |
1.2 |
70 |
21 |
9 |
^ |
1.4 |
|
*
p < .05 ** p < .01 ^ For these items there were only three
categories on the coding sheet
|
|
| |
|
