Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 1
Instructional Clarity: The Effect of Bilingualism and Instructor's
Preparation .
Rasool Noghabi and Elzbieta B. Slawinski
The University of Calgary
Rasool Kord Noghabi currently Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan Iran
Contact: Rasool Noghabi at Bu-Ali Sina University at Hamadan,
Iran,
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 2
E-mail: nogha5@ yahoo. com
Acknowledgment : Authors are very grateful to Ms. Ivy Huynh for
her contribution as a coder of lectures.
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 3
Abstract
The study focused on bilingualism and preparation of teachers that
affected the teacher’s clarity. Twenty monolingual and bilingual
participants of various preparation, in the first phase of the
study, were randomly assigned to two groups: high and low
preparation. Participants read the same lecture and presented it a
week later. Two independent coders analyzed the lectures against
the Vagueness Terms Checklist. Eighty participants in the second
phase were randomly assigned to four lecturing conditions. The
tape-recorded lectures, chosen in the first phase, were presented
to junior undergraduate students. Students rated the lecture on an
11-item response form. Results of this study were analyzed using a
two-way analysis of variance and post-test design. Bilingualism
showed significant statistical results.
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 4
Introduction
Teacher’s talk is an expected and extensive routine of classroom life. Many aspects of Instructional clarity as a preparation to the lecture were addressed already by many authors (e.g., Gliessman, Pugh, Brown, Archer, and Snyder, 1989; Metclaf, 1992; Hiller, 1971; Rogien, 1995; Rosenshine and Furst, 1971). In spite instructional clarity having waned from research studies in recent years, it is still alive with respect to bilingual instructions and their outcomes. The work is going in the American and World Universities with respect to the training of bilingual’s teacher and it contact with students. Bilingualism can affect the instructor clarity, because knowledge of English among bilinguals is usually not the same as that of the monolingual (English) instructors (e.g, Best, McRoberts, andGoodal, 2001; Snow, 1993; Strange, Yamada, Kubo, Trent, and Niski, 2001). In order to provide students with correctly spoken English phonemes bilinguals have to retrieve important information from their auditory cortex and integrate them in their cognitive areas (e.g. Slawinski, 1999; Slawinski and MacNeil, 1994). The age at which Englishis learned by bilinguals and intensity of immersion into English are vital contributing factors to perception, articulation, and an understanding of English speech (e.g. Slawinski, 1999, Slawinski and Wiigs, 1999). Speakers of morethan one language are switching their languages (codes) during communication. Code switching has been viewed as a strategy to compensate for insufficient language proficiency(Heredia and Altariba, 2001). Sidhu and Slawinski (2004) as well Xie and Slawinski (2005) indicate that proficient (competent) bilinguals demonstrate knowledge for the linguistic principles that allow grammatical words' strings and prohibit ungrammatical words' sequences for code switching.
Student must process as many as 25 to 30 phonetic segments per second
(the average conversation rate of 125 to 180 words per minute occurs
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 5
among speakers). Thus, phonemes spoken by bilingual instructors who
also conserve an intonation contour of the native language could be
misunderstood by students (e.g.,Archibald, 1998; Snow, 1993).
There is no one-to-one correspondence between the speech sounds
distinguished in a language and their acoustical properties. In spite
of this, listeners are able to assign specific labels (e.g., the
phoneme names of sounds) to different acoustical values on a continuum
of speech sounds. As such, the perception of speech sounds is
described as being categorical in nature and includes a phoneme
boundary between categories of speech sounds (Liberman, Harris,
Hoffman, & Griffith, 1957). However, the fact that different languages
have different phoneme boundaries leads to questions about how the
categorization of phonemes is affected by an individual’s fluency in
more than one language (e.g., Flege 1988; Slawinski and Wiigs 1999).
Phonological representation of bilingual speakers led to development
of two major hypotheses 1. Bilingual speakers may adopt intermediate
articulation (production) and perceptual values as a type of
compromise between the phonemic boundaries of their first language and
second language (e.g., Flege and Eefting, 1987b). 2. Bilingual
individuals develop two separate phonetic systems (e.g, Flege, 1988). To
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 6
date, research on the production of similar sounds to native speakers
by bilingual participants has suggested that differences in phoneme in
the two languages may change as a function of proficiency (e,g.; Flege
and Eefting, 1987a; Sidhu and Slawinski, 2005). However, there is
some uncertainty as to the direction of this change.
When Rosenshine and Furst (1971) reviewed the studies of process-
product variables, they found that the teacher's clarity became a very
important characteristic of a teacher. Hiller (1971) reported that
knowledge of subject matter could affect a teacher’s clarity and
especially her/his usage of vagueness terms. It was stated that the
vagueness terms are an internal stimuli condition principally
determined by a performer’s instant command of knowledge, by his/her
motivation to communicate, and by his/her own evaluation of imperfect
success. In the model of conceptual vagueness, he hypothesized that
there exists interrelationships among vagueness terms, knowledge,
emotion, and intended style of expression.
Hiller (1968) divided vagueness terms into eight categories of
impreciseness that were followed by Smith and Cotton (1980) (see
Appendix A): 1. Ambiguous designation 2. Approximation;
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 7
3.“Bluffing”and Recovery; 4. Error admission; 5. Indeterminate
quantification; 6. Multiplicity; 7. Possibility; 8. Probability.
The teacher’s clarity can be quantified objectively by low-inference
descriptors. Several researchers (e.g., Hiller, Fisher, and Kaess,
1969; Hines, Cruickshank, and Kennedy, 1985; Land 1981; Land, 1987;
Smith, 1977; Smith, 1985a; Smith, 1985b; Smith, 1987; Smith and
Bramblett, 1981; Smith and Cotton, 1980; Smith and Land, 1980; Smith
and Land, 1981) have reported low-inference descriptors, associated
with teacher’s behaviors. In these studies, two low-inference
descriptors of the teacher’s clarity such as a usage of vagueness
terms and utterances that included “Ah, Uh & Um" are described. Based
on observations of teachers in natural classroom settings, the teacher
averaged from two to five vagueness terms per minute of her/his talk
(Smith and Land, 1981). Mean of 2.18 vagueness terms per minute of
teacher talk with 40 percent of the teachers averaging between 2.5 and
4.0 such terms per minute was reported (Smith, 1977).
Another low-inference variable is the use by speakers sounds “Uh”
“Ah” & “Um”. These sounds were labeled Verbal Fluency (Hiller, Fisher,
and Kaess, 1969). A significant positive correlation between teacher’s
verbal fluency and student’s achievement was reported. For example,
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 8
the usage of utterance “Uh” had a significant effect on the student’s
achievement and perception (Land, 1981). However, Smith in his
studies reported a lack of significant correlation between an
occurrence of the teacher’s “Uhs” and student’s achievement.
It was shown that student perception of the teacher's clarity mediates
strongly. The effect of the teacher's clarity on student satisfaction
(path coefficient = 0.51, p< 0.001), and the effect of teacher's
clarity on a student's achievement (path coefficient = 0.13), as well
as the percent of variance in student perception and achievement can
be accounted for by various teacher clarity variables, as well as the
percent of variance in achievement (Land, 1987). However, the percent
of variance accounted for by clarity was greater for perception than
for achievement.
Therefore the purpose of this research was to determine the effects
of:
1. bilingualism on two low-inference behaviors of instructor clarity
(vagueness terms and utterance of “Ah”, “Uh” & “Um”),
2. bilingualism on student perception of the presentation.
3.preparation level on two low-inference behavior of instructor
clarity (vagueness terms and utterance of “Ah”, “Uh” & “Um”)
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 9
4. preparation level of instructor on student perception of the
instructional clarity.
Method
Participants
Twenty senior undergraduate female students ranging in age from 20 to
40 years with a median age of 22.5 years from the Department of
Psychology at the University of Calgary participated in the first
Experiment (first phase of the study:10 bilingual and 10 monolingual).
Participants in the first experiment were randomly assigned to one of
two groups, high-preparation and low-preparation (n = 10). A
preparation of teachers led to the Experiment 2. Experiment 2: Each
group included 5 bilinguals and 5 monolinguals. In the third
experiment (second phase of the study) 80 junior undergraduate
students (more than 91% female) from the Psychology department
participated. Participants in the third experiment were randomly
assigned to one of four conditions: bilingual teacher and high-
preparation; bilingual teacher and low-preparation; monolingual
teacher and high-preparation; monolingual teacher and low-preparation
(n = 20 participants per each group). All students reported very
good hearing and a lack of any neurological problems.
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 10
Procedure
Each participant in the experiment had an opportunity to familiarize
with the same lecture’s topic by a maximum of 45 minutes. After a week
the lecture was presented by them to no existing students and their
lecturing performance was recorded using Sony Electret condenser
microphone (ECM-270), “Revox” tape-recorder (B710 MKII), and anechoic
chamber (IAC). In the experiment 2 participants were using the same
procedure as in the experiment 1. The high-preparation group had 10
minutes to review the lecture plus 5 minutes to study the outline of
lecture before the lecturing. Time for the low-preparation group was 2
minutes to review the lecture and 1 minute to study its outline.
Participants in both treatments were allowed to look at the lecture’s
outline as they were teaching.
In the third experiment the 20 tape-recorded lectures were transcribed
and analyzed by two independent coders against Hiller’s vagueness term
dictionary (Hiller, 1968) and the Vagueness Terms Checklist.
Percentage of agreement (reliability) between two coders was checked
on the total number of identification made in quantifying two
variables (vagueness terms, utterances of “Ah, Uh and Um”). The
reliability for vagueness terms was .864 and for utterances of “Ah, Uh
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 11
and Um” was .962. Two levels of bilingualism (Experiment 1) and two
levels of the preparation (Experiment 2) composed four experimental
groups. One lecture from each group was selected for a use in the
third experiment. Criterion for a lecture’s selection was as a closest
value of a lecturer to the mean value of vagueness terms used by
members of a particular group.
In the Experiment 3, the selected lectures (two levels of
bilingualism and two levels of the preparation) were presented to
junior undergraduate students. They composed four experimental groups.
After the listening to tapes, participants in all groups of this
experiment rated the lecture on an 11-item lecture response form
(Appendix B).
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 12
Statistics:
In the first phase of the study, there were two independent variables:
bilingualism (bilingual and monolingual) and preparation (high versus
low). Two 2 * 2 analysis of variance were performed on the measures
of vagueness terms and utterances of Ah, Uh & Um. In the second phase
of the study a randomized, post-test design was used.
The first phase of the study served as a choice of speakers.
Evaluation of the first phase was based on a number of vagueness terms
and utterances of “Au, Uh & Um” used by lecturers. The second phase of
this study was designed to evaluate by students these speakers as
potential teachers. Thus, the second phase was evaluating student's
perception.
Results
A 2 * 2 analysis of variance was performed on the measures of
vagueness terms, utterances of Ah, Uh & Um, and the lesson evaluation
scores. The means and standard deviations of these scores are shown in
table 1. The results of the analysis of the ratio of vagueness terms
to total of words indicated that the main effect due to bilingualism
was significant F (1,16) = 3.778; p< 0.07. However, the main effects
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 13
due to preparation level and the interaction between bilingualism and
preparation were not significant.
Insert table 1 about here
Similar results were obtained for the ratio of vagueness terms to
total of time. The main effect due to bilingualism was significant F
(1,16) = 5.181; p< 0.03. However, the main effect due to preparation
level was not significant. In addition, the interaction between
bilingualism and preparation was not significant.
There were no significant results for ratio of utterances of Ah, Uh &
Um to total of words. However, for ratio of utterances of Ah, Uh & Um
to total of time, the main effect due to bilingualism F (1,16) =
3.888; P< 0.066 and the interaction between bilingualism and
preparation F (1,16) = 3.549; P< 0.078 were close to significant. The
ratio of utterances of Ah, Uh & Um to total of time for monolingual
lecturers in the high-preparation group was higher than that for the
monolingual lecturers in the low-preparation group, however, for
bilingual lecturers in the high-preparation group was lower than that
for bilingual lecturers in the low-preparation group.
The results of the analysis of the lecture evaluation scores are
presented in table 2. These scores resulted from totaling the scores
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 14
for all 11 items of lecture evaluation. The main effect due to
preparation level was significant in favor of the high-preparation
group, F (1, 76) = 8.437, p < .005. The main effect due to
bilingualism and also interaction between bilingualism and preparation
were not significant.
Insert table 2 about here
Cohen (1981) noted that pooling individual item ratings to obtain an
overall rating gives only a crude estimate of student evaluation of
lecture’s effectiveness. Therefore, each of 11 items of lecture
evaluation was treated as a dependent variable and 2*2 analysis of
variance was conducted. The bilingualism variable was significant in
favor of monolingual lecturers for items such as “d” (coherent), “h”
(speech easy to understand) and “j” (very clear lesson). The
preparation level variable was significant for lecturers in high
preparation group for list’s items such as “b” (decisive), “c”
(explains fully), “e” (well prepared), “f” (confident), “g” (well
organized) and “k” (clear and understandable explanation).
Bilingualism nor preparation were significant for items “a” (precise)
and “i” (speech soothing). Only item “h” (speech easy to understand)
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 15
indicated a significant interaction between bilingualism and
preparation level.
There was no significant relationship between student ratings and
gender as well as between student ratings and studying in the first or
second year.
Discussion
The results of the study indicate a significant relationship between
bilingualism and use of vagueness terms and utterances of Ah, Uh & Um
in a lecture. Interestingly, these relations were in favor of
bilingual lecturers. Therefore, the monolingual lecturers used
vagueness terms and utterances of Ah, Uh & Um more often than
bilingual lecturers. Knowledge of language can affect tusage of
vagueness terms.
The present study selected the instructor’s preparation as another
independent variable that can affect the usage of vagueness terms. The
result of this research about effect of preparation level on vagueness
supported Hiller (1971). The findings of studies about teacher’s
preparation till now have not been consistent (Hiller 1971, Hiller &
Ultman, 1973, Smith and Bramblett, 1981). In order to show effect of
preparation in the present study maybe 10 minutes for preparation
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 16
after one week has not been enough long for participants in the high-
preparation group. Participants, who were allowed to look at the
outline of lecture might attenuate treatment effects.
The results of the present study suggest that junior undergraduate
students are able to distinguish between well prepared and not well
prepared teachers. The similar finding reported by Smith (1985 a),
Smith (1985b), and Land (1981), that student’s perceived clarity may
be as important as actual teacher clarity.
Another observation in this study is that the bilingual students in
this “laboratory setting” used a lower mean frequency of vagueness
terms (1.96 per min in high-preparation and 2.94 per min in low-
preparation group) than mean frequencies reported in research
conducted in natural settings. Such research (e.g., Smith and Land,
1981) indicated means of three to five vagueness terms per minute.
However, the monolingual students used the same number of vagueness
terms in natural settings (4.18 per min for monolingual lecturers in
high-preparation and 3.71 per min in low-preparation group).
A suggestion resulting from results of this study is that teacher
trainers and teacher evaluators should focus on teacher behaviors that
can be quantified objectively. Examples of these behaviors should be
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 17
considered, especially for monolingual students, such as the usage of
vagueness terms or utterances of Ah, Uh & Um (Smith, 1985).
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 18
References
Archibald, J. (1998). Second language phonetics, phonology, and
typology. The Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Best, C.T., McrRobert, G. W., and Goodal, E. (2001). Discrimination of
native-consonant contrast varying in perceptual assimilation to the
listener’s native phonological system. Journal of Acoustical Society of America,
v.109 (2), pp.775-794.
Civikly, J.M. (1992). Clarity: teachers and students making sense of
instruction. Communication Education, v.41, pp.138-152.
Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student
achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of
Educational Research,v.51, pp.281-309.
Flege, J.E. (1988). The production and perception of speech sounds in a
foreign language. In H. Winitz (ed.) Human communication and its disorders.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Flege, J.E., and Eefting, W. (1987a). Cross-language switching in stop
consonant perception and production by Dutch speakers of English.
Speech Communication, v.6, pp.185-202.
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 19
Flege, J.E., and Eefting, W. (1987b). Production and perception of
English stops by native Spanish speakers. Journal of Phonetics, v.15,
pp.67-83
Gliessman, D.H., Pugh, R.C., Brown, L.D., Archer, A.C., and Snyder, S.S.
(1989). Applying a research based model to teacher skill training.
Journal of Educational Research, v.83, (2), pp.69-81.
Heredia, R and Alteriba, J. (2001). Bilingual language mixing: why do
bilinguals code switch? Current Directions in Psychological Science,,v.4, pp.164-
178.
Hiller, J. H. (1968). An experimental investigation of the effects of conceptual vagueness on
speaking behavior. A doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Hiller, J. H. (1971). Verbal response indicators of conceptual
vagueness. American Educational Journal, v.8, pp.151-161.
Hiller, J. H., Fisher, G.A., and Kaess, W. (1969). A computer
investigation of verbal characteristics of effective classroom
lecturing. American Educational Research Journal, v. 6 , 661-675.
Hiller, J. H., and Ultman, U. (1973). Effects of preparation and sex on
vagueness in self-reported lecturing. Eric, ED 086 946.
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 20
Hines, C. V., Cruickshank, D. R., and Kennedy, J. J. (1985). Teacher
clarity and it’s relationship to student achievement and satisfaction.
American Educational Research Journal, v.22, pp.87-99.
Land, M. L. (1981). Actual and perceived teacher clarity: relations to
student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v.18,
pp.139-143.
Land, M. L. (1987). Vagueness and clarity. In The International
Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education. M J. Dunkin (ed).
Pergamon press. New York.
Liberman, Harris, Hoffman, and Grifith. (1957). The discrimination of
speech sounds within and across of phoneme boundaries. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, v.54, pp.358-368.
Metcalf, K. K. (1992). Instructional clarity: a review of research.
Unpublished, manuscript. Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana.
Rosenshine, B., and Furst, N. (1971). Research on teacher performance
criteria. In B.O. Smith (Ed). Research in Teacher Education: A
Symposium. Englewood cliffs, N.J.; Prentice-Hall.
Rogien, l. (1995), Effect of training in cognitive awareness of student
knowledge on lesson planning and micro teaching for secondary
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 21
preservice teachers, Unpublished manuscript. Indiana University,
Bloomington, Indiana.
Sidhu, N., & Slawinski, E. B. (2004). Punjabi-English bilinguals :
Proficiency and code switched sentences. (Submitted to the International
Journal f Bilingualism).
Slawinski, E. B. (1999). Acquisition of /r-l/ phonemic contrast by
Japanese children and adults. In Psycholinguistics on the threshold of the year
2000. Proceedings (M. Pinto, J. Veloso, and B. Maja, eds.). 583-590.
Slawinski, E. B., & MacNeil, J. F. (1994). Perceptual and productive
distinction between English [r} and [l} in prevocalic position by
English and Japanese speakers. The International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 10,
pp. 295-318.
Slawinski,E,B, & Wiigs, M.(1999). ). Categorization of bilabial stop
consonants by bilingual speakers of English and Polish. Proceedings of
the International Conference on Phonetics, San Francisco. USA, 1999.
771-774.
Smith, L. R. (1977). Aspects of teacher discourse and student
achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 8, 195-204.
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 22
Smith, L. R. (1985a). Teacher clarifying behaviors: effect on student
achievement and perceptions. Journal of Experimental Education, 53 (3), 162-
169.
Smith, L. R. (1985b). Student perception, teacher clarity and their relation to student performance.
Educational and Psychological Research, 5 (2), 131-142.
Smith, L. R. (1987). Verbal clarifying behaviors, mathematics student participation, attitudes.
School-Science and Mathematics, 87 (1), 40-49.
Smith, L. R., and Cotton, M. L. (1980). Effect of lesson vagueness and
discontinuity on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational
Psychology,72 (5), 670-675.
Smith, L. R., and Bramblett, G. H. (1981). The effect of teacher
vagueness terms on student performance in high school biology. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 18 (4), 353-360.
Smith, L. R., and Land, M. L. (1980). Student perception of teacher clarity in
mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11, 137-146.
Smith, L. R., and Land, M. L. (1981). Low-inference verbal behaviors
related to teacher clarity. Journal of Classroom Interaction,17 (1), 37-42.
Snow, C. E. (1993). Bilingualism and second language acquisition. 392-
408. In Psycholinguistics 2nd edition J. B. Gleason, N. B. Ratner, (eds.)
Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Orlando. Fl, 435-475.
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 23
Strange, W. C. E., Yamada, A. R., Kubo, R., Trent, S. A., & Nishi, K.
(2001). Effects of consonantal context on perceptual assimilation of
AE vowel by Japanese listener. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 109 (4),
1691-1704
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 24
Table 1: The means and standard deviations of measures of vagueness
terms
Bilingualism Preparation 1 2
3 4
Monolingual High Mean .0347
4.18 .0580 7.228
N 5 5 5
5
SD .0126 1.536 .0370
4.986
Low Mean .0328 3.706
.0486 4.825
N 5 5
5 5
SD .0083 1.521
.0461 3.835
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 25
Total Mean .0337
3.943 .0533 6.027
N 10 10 10
10
SD .0101 1.463 .0397
4.381
Bilingual High Mean .0186
1.958 .0143 1.545
N 5 5
5 5
SD .0097 1.074
.0097 1.175
Low Mean .03
2.943 .0507 4.695
N 5 5
5 5
SD .0121 1.662
.0145 1.581
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 26
Total Mean .0243
2.451 .0325 3.120
N 10 10
10 10
SD .012
1.418 .023 2.117
Total High Mean .0266
3.069 .0362 4.387
N 10 10
10 10
SD .0136 1.712
.0243 4.542
Low Mean .0314
3.324 .0496 4.760
N 10 10
10 10
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 27
SD .0098 1.555
.0326 2.766
Total Mean .029 3.197
.0429 4.573
N 20 20
20 20
SD .0118 1.597
.0333 3.665
The ratio of vagueness terms to total of words
The ratio of vagueness terms to total of time
The ratio of utterances of Ah, Uh & Um to total of words
The ratio of utterances of Ah, Uh & Um to total of time
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 28
Table 2: The Means and standard deviations of lecture evaluation scores
Bilingualism Preparation N Mean
SD
Monolingual High 20 30.7
6.674
Low 20
25.2 8.256
Total 40
27.95 7.916
Bilingual High 20
27.25 7.397
Low 20
23.35 6.483
Total 40
25.3 7.144
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 29
Total High 40
28.95 7.17
Low 40
24.27 7.387
Total 80
26.625 7.609
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 30
Appendix A: Vagueness terms and frequency of their occurrence
Category Total
frequency of occurrence
1. Ambiguous designation 6
Condition (1), somehow (1), somewhere (3), thing (1)
2. Approximation 8
About (2), a little (2), just about (1), somewhat(1), sort of (2)
3. “Bluffing” and Recovery 55
Actually (7), and so forth (1), and so on (1), anyway (5),
As you know (5), in a nutshell (1), in essence (3), in fact (4),
in other words (2),of course (10), or whatever (2),
to make a long story short (2),you know (7), you see (5)
4. Error admission 4
Excuse me (1), I’m sorry (1), I guess (2)
5. Indeterminate quantification
14
A bunch (1), a couple (4), a few (1), some (3), various (5)
6. Multiplicity 6
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 31
Kind(s) of (2), type(s) of (4)
7. Possibility 18
Chances are (1), could be (1), may (1), maybe (4), might (5),
perhaps (3), seems (3)
8. Probability 9
Generally (2), in general (1), often (1), ordinarily (2), probably (1),
usually (2)
Total use of vagueness terms
120
Note: Numbers in parentheses refer to frequencies of occurrences of
terms in the lesson containing vagueness terms in Smith and Cotton’s
Research (1980).
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 32
Appendix B: Lecture Response Form
What did you think of the teaching?
a. precise 5* 4 3 2
1 imprecise
b. decisive 5 4 3 2
1 indecisive
c. explains fully 5 4 3 2
1 does not explain fully
d. coherent 5 4 3 2
1 incoherent
e. well prepared 5 4 3 2
1 not well prepared
Teacher clarity, bilingualism and preparation 33
f. confident 5 4 3 2
1 not confident
g. well organized 5 4 3 2
1 not well organized
h. speech easy to 5 4 3 2
1 speech not easy
understand
to understand
i. speech soothing 5 4 3 2
1 speech irritating
j. very clear 5 4 3 2
1 lecture not clear
lecture
at all
Top Related