Sentence examples for length of dialogs from inspiring English sources

Cory's length of dialogs (LOD) are typically larger than 3, which indicates they are beyond the simple QRF patterns.

While Ben's average number of reasoning components used in his dialog is 1.05 and his average length of dialogs are less than 3 (M = 2.38).

For example, Ann's average number of reasoning components used in a dialog is 1.46, which is higher than that of the other two teachers, so is her average length of dialogs (M = 4.69).

Table 5 Comparison of each teacher's discourse patterns   Total no. of dialogs Average time per dialog Average numbers of reasoning components Average length of dialogs (LOD) Ann 59 0:41 1.46 4.69 Cory 91 0:45 1.40 4.15 Ben 109 0:35 1095 2.38.

Fig. 3 Length of dialog that counts the number of turn-changes between a teacher and students in the dialog.

Length of dialog (LOD) represents a dialog pattern that counts the number of turn-changes between a teacher and students in the dialog (see Fig. 3).

The CDAT coding results of the sample classroom discourses include each teacher's (1) coded CDAT tables, (2) length of dialog (LOD), and (3) reasoning components used in a dialog.

In addition, this analysis also generates various quantitative data that represent certain characteristics of the classroom discourse, i.e., length of dialog and the number of reasoning components used.

The accumulated data from the CDAT coding generates overall descriptive information such as average length of dialog, what and how reasoning components used, and ratio of teacher utterances and students'.

A CDAT table is typically used for coding two or three dialogs depending on the length of the dialogs.

The length of the dialogs depended on the quality of the learner's input: perfect answers complete the dialog immediately, while incomplete or wrong answers lead to a series of hints and prompts.