The role of drama in the teaching of speaking and listening as the basis for social capital

This paper explores how the concept of 'social capital' relates to the teaching of speaking and listening. The argument draws on Bourdieu's notion that a common language is an illusion but posits that an understanding of the grammar of speech can be productive in the development of both an understanding of what constitutes effective speech and the development of competence in speaking. It is argued that applying structuralist notions of written grammar is an inadequate approach to understanding speech acts or enhancing the creative use of speech. An analysis is made of how typical features of speech relate to dramatic dialogue and how the meaning of what is said is contingent upon aural and visual signifiers. On this basis a competent speaker is seen as being one who produces expressions appropriate for a range of situations by intentionally employing such signifiers. The paper draws on research into the way drama teachers make explicit reference to and use of semiotics and dramatic effectiveness in order to improve students' performance and by so doing empower them to increase their social capital. Ultimately, it is concluded that helping students identify, analyse and employ the aural, visual and verbal grammar of spoken English is not an adjunct to the subject of drama, but an intrinsic part of understanding the art form. What is called for is a re-appraisal by drama teachers of their own understanding of concepts relating to speech acts in order to enhance this area of their work.

Borg's rating of perceived exertion scales: do the verbal anchors mean the same for different clinical groups?

Objective: To examine the interpretation of the verbal anchors used in the Borg rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scales in different clinical groups and a healthy control group. Design: Prospective experimental study. Setting: Rehabilitation center. Participants: Nineteen subjects with brain injury, 16 with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and 20 healthy controls. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Subjects used a visual analog scale (VAS) to rate their interpretation of the verbal anchors from the Borg RPE 6-20 and the newer 10-point category ratio scale. Results: All groups placed the verbal anchors in the order that they occur on the scales. There were significant within-group differences (P > .05) between VAS scores for 4 verbal anchors in the control group, 8 in the CLBP group, and 2 in the brain injury group. There was no significant difference in rating of each verbal anchor between the groups (P > .05). Conclusions: All subjects rated the verbal anchors in the order they occur on the scales, but there was less agreement in rating of each verbal anchor among subjects in the brain injury group. Clinicians should consider the possibility of small discrepancies in the meaning of the verbal anchors to subjects, particularly those recovering from brain injury, when they evaluate exercise perceptions.