|
||||||||||||||||
%
responses 2008 ('04) |
||||||||||||||||
y4 |
y8 |
|||||||||||||||
Oral presentation: | very expressive and lively |
10 (14) |
12 (20) |
|||||||||||||
moderately expressive |
38 (33) |
41 (40) |
||||||||||||||
little expressivess |
52 (53) |
47 (40) |
||||||||||||||
Continuity: (follows narrative thread appropriately) |
very well linked |
24 (29) |
36 (53) |
|||||||||||||
partially fits, some discontinuity |
63 (59) |
57 (43) |
||||||||||||||
doesn’t follow story at all |
13 (12) |
7 (4) |
||||||||||||||
Achieving closure: (bringing story to clear conclusion) |
very cohesive, complete ending |
5 (6) |
11 (14) |
|||||||||||||
quite cohesive, most elements
pulled together |
23 (26) |
37 (40) |
||||||||||||||
partial, abrupt or confusing ending |
51 (47) |
41 (36) |
||||||||||||||
story clearly not completed |
21 (21) |
11 (10) |
||||||||||||||
Creativity/originality of content: |
high |
8 (13) |
16 (18) |
|||||||||||||
moderate |
34 (33) |
41 (39) |
||||||||||||||
little or none |
58 (54) |
43 (43) |
||||||||||||||
Used rich descriptive language: | 8 (12) |
17 (18) |
||||||||||||||
Total
score: |
8–10 |
5 (10) |
12 (15) |
|||||||||||||
6–7 |
12 (15) |
18 (22) |
||||||||||||||
4–5 |
26 (20) |
28 (28) |
||||||||||||||
2–3 |
39 (39) |
32 (26) |
||||||||||||||
0–1 |
18 (16) |
10 (9) |
Subgroup Analysis [Click on charts to enlarge] : |
Commentary: |
In presenting an ending to this story, there was little difference between year 4 and 8 students in expressiveness, but the year 8 students tended to come up with a more appropriate and complete ending. At both year levels, there were slightly fewer high scores in 2008 than in 2004. |