Lee ArnoldSeigakuin University

Learner ownership in student presentation success

Introduction

• Student oral presentations have gained ground in recent years among TEFL practitioners in Japanese higher education

• Rationale for oral presentations based in performance as an alternative measure of assessment (Brown and Hudson, 1998)

• Viability buoyed by potential for more learner-centric involvement (Otoshi and Heffernen, 2008)

Issues

• uPotential for learner anxiety with target language (Koch and Terrell, 11991), particularly in situational tasks (Williams and Andrade, 2008)

• uDanger with learner misunderstanding and incomprehension of uevaluative criteria (Orsmond, Merry and Reiling, 2000)

• uPossibility of significant peer bias in peer presentation evaluation h(Dochy, Segers and Sluijsmans, 1999).

Research focus and investigative gaps

• uBulk of literature focuses on oral presentation preparation and uevaluative metrics

• uWhat learners produce is often overlooked

• uSuccessful presentation outcome may best be measured by the level oof ownership learners take in preparation process

• uVisual and linguistic artifacts of presentation may reveal such levels

Alternative focus

• uPossibility exists that a focus on effort and execution rather than eevaluative criteria may free up learner potential

• uSuch focus suited for novice presenters

• eExplicit guidelines and models rather than evaluative metrics may eespecially serve novices better

• tTrading off such metrics may gain for learners a greater sense of iownership over presentation preparation process

Samples of alternative criteria of success

• uAll samples here focus on effort and execution

• uAlmost all learners had never previously attempted oral presentations nin L2 and had no prior frame of reference for them

• Learners given explicit guidelines and shown samples of previous ulearner Power Point and poster efforts

Sample class #1

• uMostly high-beginner second- and third-year early childhood ueducation majors in elective early childhood education English ucommunication class

• uTarget content of L2 in disseminating instructions or explaining Sschool policies and procedures in interactions with mixed Japanese-Fforeign parent English users

• uSecondary use of English for communication of instructions with ureturnee children whose proficiency in Japanese may be behind their eEnglish ability

Sample class #1 learner analysis

• uPoster presentations best for this particular L2 learner load

• PPreparation emphasis on collaboration as investment in process

• uAim of presentations for exploring themes in their future field

• uUse of L1 allowed for purposes of topical illustration

• uL2 errors tolerated if not a distraction from presentation theme

Sample class #1 efforts

Sample class #1 outcome

• uLearners could deliver presentations to guidelines though some were iishorter than others while some projects were simpler

• uLess-proficient groups spread L2 load out among members while umore proficient allowed stronger individuals to step forward

• uHigh level of cooperation and collaboration within each group

• uOverall outcome successful for their level of proficiency

Sample class #2

• uVariable (low-to-high) intermediate-level sophomore and junior ulearners in an elective culture-centric English class at a technical uuniversity

• uTarget content with L2 made up of culturally-oriented themes that ccould be exploited for gaining confidence with public speaking for ppotential future professional requirements

• uNon-major-oriented material potentially of value to learners for its efocus on content rather than form

Sample class #2 learner analysis

• PPoster and Power Point vehicles equally suitable for their L2 load ubut time and core requirements in major dictated poster displays

• PPreparation emphasized collaboration in groups but allowed forr uindividual presentations

• uAim of presentations to have learners explore one theme in L2

• uUse of L1 permitted for topical illustration but advised against given ooverall L2 ability

• uL2 errors nonetheless tolerated if not a distraction from theme

Sample class #2 efforts

Sample class #2 outcome

• uWhile yielding interesting presentations on theme some groups udemonstrated greater member cooperation than others

• uAlmost all presentations nonetheless demonstrated adequate length uwith a few exceeding allotted time

• uSome disinterest may have arisen from nature of content

• SSome conspicuous L2 errors but best efforts revealed excellent idea oorganization and spoken output

Sample class #3

• uMixed level third-year pharmaceutical science majors in a field-uspecific English class at a pharmaceutical sciences university

• uTarget content with English in reading and discussing themes in upharmaceutical sciences for future professional purposes

• uRoutine presentations in L1 for student laboratory research natural bbridge for presentation in L2

Sample class #3 learner analysis

• PSize and nature of class dictated group projects

• uPower Point ideal for more proficient L2-using groups but poster uand OHP displays permitted

• uAim of presentations to have learners gain confidence with L2 needs iiin their future field

• uUse of L1 permitted for topical illustration given mixed levels

• uL2 errors nonetheless tolerated if not a distraction from theme

iSample class #3

efforts

Sample class #3 outcome

• uPresentations were consistently engaging to audience

• iGroups brought out most in themselves with regard to member ucollaboration and L2 effort

• uLittle to no L1 use in visual content or oral presentation

• uAlmost all presentations kept to time with clear transitions from one ppoint to another within respective topics

• uSupportive peer environment

Conclusion

• uNovice presenters mostly capable of successful preparation and udelivery without intricate metrics of evaluation

• eLack of such metrics may relieve some degree of pressure even with hrisk of margin of error and inaccuracy

• aApproach does not guarantee novice presenter reliability but is still ppreferable to criteria that may be difficult for novices to meet

• uGraded metrics of evaluation can be introduced based on L2 pproficiency, content, and level of presentation experience

References

Brown, J.D., & Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly 3232 (4), 653-675.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer-, and co-assessment in hihigher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-35.

Koch, A.S., & Terrell, T.D. (1991). Affective reactions of foreign language students to nanatural approach activities and teaching techniques. In E.K. Horwitz & D.J. Young (Eds.), LiLanguage anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp.109–126). EiEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2000). The use of student derived marking criteria in pepeer and self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(1), 23-38.

Otoshi, J. & Heffernen, N. (2008). Factors predicting effective oral presentations in EFL clclassrooms. The Asian EFL Journal 10 (1), 65-78.

Williams, K., & Andrade, M. (2008). Foreign language learning anxiety in Japanese EFL cliclasses: causes, coping, and loss of control. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language TeTeaching 5 (2), 181-191.