Upload
others
View
9
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ORALS AIN’T ORALS:
THE ROLE OF PREPARED ORAL PRESENTATIONS IN
THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND. HOW DO
INSTRUCTION AND FEEDBACK PRACTICES GUIDE
DELIVERY CHOICES?
Lesley Irvine
Dip Teach EC (BCAE), BA (UQ), ASDA
A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts (Research)
Creative Industries, Queensland University of Technology
2012
i
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP AND ORIGINALITY
I certify that this thesis has been written by me. To the best of my knowledge and belief,
all sources have been accredited in the thesis.
I also certify that this research has not previously been submitted for a degree at any
other higher education institution.
Signed:
Date:
ii
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As a teacher, I see tremendous value in assisting others to become persuasive
communicators and discerning listeners. I believe that such skills open up many exciting
opportunities in both the workplace and life in general. This belief has been strengthened
through the ongoing guidance of my two supervisors, Jillian Clare and Patsy McCarthy.
Their knowledge of speech communication is immense, as too is their enthusiasm and
willingness to share their wealth of experience. I am extremely grateful to them both and
feel privileged to have had two such wonderful mentors supporting me throughout this
journey.
Closer to home, I am grateful to my husband, Ralph, my children, Lydia and Emma, my
mum, June, and my sister, Sue. Thank you for your love, patience, encouragement, and
editing skills. All of you endured many, many hours of listening to me talk about my
research!
This thesis is dedicated to my dad, Graham Bruce Irvine, who was an excellent
communicator and who always encouraged me to express my thoughts and opinions.
iv
ABSTRACT
Despite an ostensibly technology-driven society, the ability to communicate orally
continues to feature as an essential ability for students at school and university, as it is for
graduates in the workplace. Pedagogically, one rationale is that the need to develop
effective oral communication skills is tied to life-long learning which includes successful
participation in future work-related tasks. One tangible way that educators have assessed
proficiency in the area of communication is through prepared oral presentations. While
much of the literature uses the terms ‘oral communication’ and ‘oral presentation’
interchangeably, some writers question the role more formal presentations play in the
overall development of oral communication skills. However, such formal speaking tasks
continue to be a recognised assessment practice in both the secondary school and
academy, and, therefore, worthy of further investigation.
Adding to the discussion, this thesis explores the knowledge and skills students bring into
the academy from previous educational experiences. It examines some of the teaching
and assessment methods used in secondary schools to develop oral communication
skills through the use of formal oral presentations. Specifically, it investigates criterion-
referenced assessment sheets and how these tools are used as a form of instruction, as
well as their role and effectiveness in the evaluation of student ability. The focus is on the
student’s perspective and includes 12 semi-structured interviews with school students.
The purpose of this thesis is to explore key thematics underpinning oral communication
and to identify tensions between expectations and practice. While acknowledging the
breadth and depth of material available under the heading of ‘communication theory’, this
study specifically draws on an expanded view of the rhetorical tradition to fully interrogate
the assumptions supporting the practice of assessing oral presentations. Finally, this
thesis recommends reconnecting with an updated understanding of rhetoric as a way of
assisting in the development of expressive, articulate and discerning communicators.
Keywords: oral presentation, rhetoric, communicatio n, instruction, assessment
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP AND ORIGINALITY ..................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES .................................................................................. viii
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iv
INTRODUCTION TO THE THESIS .................................................................................. 1
1.1 Overview .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background ...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Significance of this research ............................................................................. 2
1.4 Scope of study .................................................................................................. 3
1.5 Research questions .......................................................................................... 4
1.6 Chapter summaries .......................................................................................... 5
1.7 Research in communication ............................................................................. 6
RHETORIC ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Rhetorical lessons from the past ..................................................................... 11
2.2.1 The Classical Canons ................................................................................ 15
2.2.2 The Canons beyond the Classical Period ................................................... 18
2.3 Contemporary considerations and challenges ................................................ 22
2.4 Oral communication and the written word ....................................................... 24
2.5 Conclusion...................................................................................................... 26
COMMUNICATING ORALLY ......................................................................................... 28
3.1 Focus on oral communication skills ................................................................ 28
3.2 Positioning oral presentations ......................................................................... 31
3.3 Instruction practices ........................................................................................ 35
MATTERS OF ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................... 41
4.1 Assessing oral presentations .......................................................................... 41
4.2 Criterion-referenced assessment and rubrics ................................................. 45
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 50
5.1 Positioning the study ...................................................................................... 50
vi
5.2 Qualitative paradigm ....................................................................................... 50
5.3 Theoretical framework and methodology ........................................................ 54
5.4 Methods ......................................................................................................... 56
5.4.1 Interviews ................................................................................................... 57
5.4.2 How the interviews were analysed ............................................................. 58
5.4.3 Document analysis ..................................................................................... 60
5.5 Ethical clearance ............................................................................................ 62
5.6 Gathering the data .......................................................................................... 62
FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 63
6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 63
6.2 What students perceive are the benefits of giving prepared oral presentations? ......................................................................................... 63
6.3 What instruction do students receive on how to present ‘orally’? .................... 65
6.3.1 General advice prior to presenting ............................................................. 65
6.3.2 General advice on speaking notes ............................................................. 66
6.3.3 Written feedback as instructional material .................................................. 67
6.3.4 Rehearsing the presentation ...................................................................... 69
6.3.5 Speaking notes used at time of presentation .............................................. 70
6.3.6 The role of language .................................................................................. 74
6.4 How are oral skills being assessed at the time of delivery? ............................ 77
6.5 How do students feel about giving prepared oral presentations for assessment? ............................................................................................. 84
6.6 What do students believe could be done to make such task more effective? .. 87
6.7 Interview data summary .................................................................................. 88
6.8 Sixty-four marking rubrics ............................................................................... 89
6.9 What is being assessed? ................................................................................ 90
6.9.1 Levels of proficiency – the language of rubrics ........................................... 95
6.9.2 Non-verbal considerations ........................................................................ 100
6.9.3 Audience engagement ............................................................................. 102
6.10 Rubrics summary .......................................................................................... 103
6.11 Findings conclusion ...................................................................................... 103
vii
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 105
7.1 Overview ...................................................................................................... 105
7.2 What are the perceived benefits of students giving prepared oral presentations? .............................................................................................. 106
7.3 What instructions do students receive on how to present ‘orally’ and how are oral skills assessed at the time of delivery? .............................. 108
7.3.1 Secondary school and university expectations ......................................... 109
7.3.2 Speaking notes ........................................................................................ 112
7.3.3 The role of rubrics in instructing and assessing prepared oral presentations ..................................................................... 114
7.4 What is meant by the term oral in prepared oral presentations for assessment? ........................................................................................... 117
7.4.1 The role of written communication in oral presentations ........................... 118
7.4.2 Voice, speech and final delivery ............................................................... 121
7.5 What is the relationship between prepared oral presentations for assessment and the development of effective oral communication skills? .... 123
7.6 Conclusion.................................................................................................... 126
7.7 Recommendations ........................................................................................ 130
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 133
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 142
viii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 5.1 Extract from Creswell’s (1994) table comparing quantitative and qualitative research 51
Table 5.2 Extract from Creswell’s (1994) table indicating comfort level of researcher with qualitative and quantitative paradigms 53
Table 5.3 Breakdown of students interviewed for this study 62
Table 6.1 Specific areas of feedback from recent speeches 68
Table 6.2 How students feel about giving oral presentations 85
Table 6.3 Ways of defining levels of achievement 89
Table 6.4 Criteria listed on each rubric 90
Table 6.5 How speaking/voice terms are represented on criteria sheets 91
Table 6.6: Ranking of specific speaking traits across collected rubrics 92
Table 6.7: How speaking traits are grouped on individual rubrics 94
Table 6.8: Comments from marking rubrics using quantifiable language 95
Table 6.9: Use of adjectives, adverbs and qualifying statements on rubrics 96
Table 6.10: Use of adverbs and adjectives on rubrics 96
Table 6.11: Reference to eye contact on rubrics 100
Table 6.12: Highest to lowest levels of proficiency in reference to eye contact 101
Table 6.13: Language reflecting written rather than oral considerations 102
Table 6.14: Audience engagement as part of a specific criterion 102
Table 6.15: Audience engagement as a specific criterion 102
Figure 1: The Rhetorical Triangle 16
1
1
INTRODUCTION TO THE THESIS
1.1 Overview
This thesis explores if, and how, prepared oral presentations for assessment contribute to
the development of broader oral communication skills. It specifically addresses the
educational guidelines and strategies students are given both before and after in-class
presentations. On the surface, this research appears straightforward in terms of the
delivery choices students make in light of instruction and feedback concerning prepared
oral presentations. However, the practices and assumptions surrounding this type of
assessment are anything but straightforward. It is not difficult to find evidence supporting
the inclusion and benefits of prepared oral presentations for assessment as well as
copious amounts of information providing guidelines concerning how to make such
experiences ‘easier’. What is more difficult to locate is any detailed analysis of these
guidelines. In particular, these two elements are missing: how one idea relates to another
and, most importantly, what they have to offer in terms of overall skill development. It is
for these reasons that I believe many educators find the task of preparing students to
present, and evaluating final efforts, to be a daunting one. However, as this type of
assessment continues to find favour in both secondary schools and the academy, it is
worthy of further examination. Therefore, this research takes on a practical approach in
an effort to unpack the simplest understandings associated with this type of assessment
in light of bigger picture considerations of oral communication. This thesis draws on a
diverse range of literature. The intentional inclusion of academic texts, instructional
textbooks and school-based material is to assist in the examination of ‘best-practice’
assumptions that surround prepared oral presentations for assessment.
1.2 Background
For many years I have been involved in marking prepared oral presentations at both the
secondary school and university level. During this time I have written the following
comment, or used similar wording, on numerous criteria sheets: You will make more of a
connection with your audience if you speak your thoughts rather than read your words.
The reference to ‘speaking thoughts’ rather than ‘reading words’ infers that oral
2
presentations should be spoken extemporaneously1 and not just read. This is in keeping
with what the literature says about effective delivery, that it is “spontaneous, natural and
conversational” (Sprague and Stuart, 2005; Morreale and Bovee 1998; Sellnow, 2005). In
recent years I have started to question what this comment means in light of what students
are being asked to do. For example, how do students reconcile these seemingly
contradictory recommendations which are often stated or implied as part of this type of
assessment? You must stay within the time limit; reading or memorising speeches is not
encouraged however eye contact should be maintained throughout your presentation.
You sounded hesitant at times; remember the importance of practising your speech
without going to the extremes of memorising a written script. It is from a personal desire
to improve and expand on my own teaching that this study evolved. However, as it deals
with a common type of assessment, it has broader implications than just my ongoing
classroom experience.
1.3 Significance of this research
The significance of this study has been reinforced in recent years by the importance given
to essential graduate capabilities for future employment across the university sector. In
examining such lists produced from Deakin University (2010), Curtin University (2011),
University of Queensland (2010) and QUT (2010) each one features the need for
effective communication skills. While written communication dominates many forms of
educational assessment, spoken communication continues to find a place in modern
classrooms. In fact, some argue that more recent technological advances, including new
media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Skype, have recaptured the need to use
language more akin to oral communication. Apart from this, the ability to speak in front of
others is still seen as a favourable skill particularly in relation to career prospects. An area
of tension is how best to develop oral communication skills within an educational
environment that requires such skills to also be assessed. The most common oral
communication assessment task in both secondary schools and the academy is the
prepared oral presentation.
1 In this study the term extemporaneous is used as follows: “[This] method requires that a speech be carefully researched and planned … however you speak from a speaking outline rather than writing everything out. Thus each time you present the speech, the key concepts remain intact but the ideas are phrased somewhat differently” (Sellnow, 2005, p. 289).
3
1.4 Scope of study
This topic has the potential to be very broad, or as Silverman (1997) states, to say “a little
about a lot” [rather than] “a lot about a little” (p. 3). However, it is important to place this
research in context and consider broader communication issues before narrowing my
focus to the delivery stage of oral presentations. This is particularly important when
dealing with the tradition of rhetoric. While this term and body of knowledge may not be
directly taught in secondary schools, many of the principles underpinning successful oral
presentations can be traced to this most ancient of practices. Therefore, my literature
review is deliberately broad and includes theoretical considerations as well as educational
resources. These resources include curriculum documents and instructional and
evaluative material for specific oral assessment tasks. In addition, because the ability to
speak in front of others is not confined to the classroom experience, other resources
dealing with how to present in public are also examined. Many of these resources
originate from North American universities where basic speech communication courses
are more common than in Australian higher education institutions. When it comes to
actually delivering prepared oral presentations for assessment, this material is relevant
because the range of advice on offer is extensive and not easily located from a specific
source.
This thesis examines the knowledge and skills that students bring into the academy from
previous educational experiences. While acknowledging the breadth of resources utilised
in this study, it is important to remember that it was conducted in Queensland, Australia,
with a focus on secondary school education. It was conducted from mid 2007 to mid
2011. During this time, a National Curriculum for preparatory, primary, and secondary
schooling was being trialled and reviewed. A phased approach will see the
implementation of both a K(P) -10 curriculum (Kindergarten, Prep through to Year 10) and
a senior curriculum over this period. For example, the senior English syllabus will begin
for Year 11 students in 2011 while students entering Year 12 of the same year will be the
last cohort to undertake the 2002 Senior English Syllabus.
This study is not a review of current or future curriculum practices. Rather, it draws on the
experiences of secondary school students in preparing to present orally for classroom
assessment pieces. The basis for this study is that regardless of curriculum changes,
students have been, and will continue to be, involved in prepared oral presentations for
4
assessment2 in some shape or form. This assertion is extended post Year 12 when
students enter the academy where again, prepared oral presentations for assessment are
part of numerous subjects across all faculties. In relation to how to give an oral
presentation, there is an abundance of material available from books, internet sites, and
instructor-led courses. It is also easy to locate many resources dealing with the
importance of developing effective communication skills. What is less available is how
students, in particular secondary school and university students, approach the task of
presenting oral presentations and what they see as the overall benefits of this type of
assessment. This directly relates to the student’s experience and the aforementioned
feedback regarding ‘speaking thoughts rather than reading words’. What do students
understand by this comment, and how can they incorporate such advice in their planning
while still addressing other criteria that are considered important for each oral
assessment piece?
1.5 Research questions
This research draws on the rhetorical perspective, including a more contemporary view of
this communication tradition. From this understanding, pedagogical considerations of
developing and assessing oral communication skills in the education curriculum is
addressed. As noted, one way of assessing such skills is through prepared oral
presentations. This type of assessment is explored in terms of both instruction and
feedback practices. While acknowledging a focus on the student experience,
consideration is also given to how such tasks are set up and evaluated. Therefore, the
following three research questions are examined in relation to issues of both ‘learning’
and ‘teaching’:
What do students perceive as the benefits of giving prepared oral presentations?
What instruction do students receive on how to present ‘orally’?
How are oral skills being assessed at the time of delivery and to what effect?
2 The draft new senior English syllabus refers to students undertaking three or four written tasks each year as well as two or three spoken or signed ones. Also, the draft K(P)-10 curriculum within the learning area of English clearly makes reference to oral communication. In particular, under the achievement standard of speaking and listening for Years 7-10 there is reference to oral presentations.
5
These explicit questions lead to a deeper analysis required to investigate two overarching
questions:
What is meant by the term ‘oral’ in prepared oral presentations for assessment?
What, if any, is the relationship between prepared oral presentations for assessment
and the development of long-term oral communication skills?
While the literature informs this project, the actual research supporting this study draws
from a qualitative paradigm. To do this work, I use the methods of interviewing and
general document analysis. Furthermore, my ongoing participation in teaching and
assessing prepared oral presentations contributes to this study.
1.6 Chapter summaries
This thesis is divided into seven chapters. This first chapter identifies the origins of this
research and how it will progress. It also situates this study in the rhetorical tradition,
while acknowledging difficulty in trying to isolate or contain any communication research.
Chapter Two explores the rhetorical tradition from the ancients to more contemporary
considerations. While this chapter draws on a rhetorical understanding of what it means
to present an oral message, the inclusion of more recent scholarship allows for an
exploration of the language of oral presentations – in terms of both instruction and
feedback practices – to be analysed. Specifically, the difficulty in reaching ‘shared
understanding’ is addressed. Chapter Three looks at the relationship between ‘oral
communication’ and ‘oral presentation’. This leads to how more formal speaking
opportunities are positioned in the classroom. This chapter also addresses guidelines
used to assist students in presenting orally for assessment. Chapter Four is directly
concerned with matters of assessment with a focus on what can, or is, assessed. Within
both the secondary school and university settings, the criterion-referenced assessment
sheet (or marking rubric) is a common tool of evaluation. For this reason, it is examined.
Chapter Five details my chosen methodology and outlines the specific methods I have
used to conduct this research. Chapter Six presents my findings. The purpose of this
chapter is to simply lay bare the gathered data. This culminates with an overall discussion
of theory and findings in Chapter Seven. My research questions frame this discussion.
6
1.7 Research in communication
Any study associated with communication immediately presents challenges; one of the
most difficult being how to situate the research in the vast, seemingly endless, resources
that have occupied scholars’ minds over the centuries. For some, communication is ‘part’
of our daily lives while for others it is fundamental to all human experience. Littlejohn
(2002) suggests that it may be futile to try to come up with a “single definition” (p. 6) but
this has not stopped numerous academics from various disciplines contributing to a body
of knowledge about communication that is as deep as it is wide. For this study, the
connection of communication to the ‘human experience’ is paramount and it is from this
general standpoint that I begin to address the term ‘communication’. For Littlejohn (2002),
any academic interest in communication requires consideration of the available theories
on offer. As he suggests, these theories are diverse and at times appear to contradict and
conflict with each other. Nevertheless, they provide a necessary starting point for this
study and a way of “mapping the territory” (Griffin, 2000, p. 34), before focusing on a
specific communication event, such as in this study, prepared oral presentations for
assessment.
In his seminal journal article, Communication Theory as a Field, Craig (1999) addresses
the complexity of studying communication; in particular, the difficultly in identifying
common ground or a ‘field’ from so many premises. To highlight this, he quotes a study
by Anderson who in 1995 identified 249 separate theories dealing with communication
taken from just seven books on the subject. For Craig (1999), one way of managing this
challenge is to place the theories within the human context by considering them as
“relevant to a common practical life world” (p. 120). What Craig (1999) is suggesting is a
means of organising the theoretical density of communication by focussing on the
practical aspects of human interaction. In acknowledging Craig, Littlejohn (2002)
considers this contextualisation further in that “all communication theories are ultimately
practical because every theory is a response to some aspect of communication
encountered in everyday life” (p. 13). From this practical place of human interaction, Craig
(1999) identifies seven traditions3 of communication theory that include rhetorical,
semiotic, phenomenological, cybernetic, sociopsychological, sociocultural, and critical
3 As Griffin (2000) points out, these seven traditions provide a “framework” when addressing communication theory. They might not “cover all approaches to communication theory” and they may not be fixed; in other words “hybrids are possible across traditions” (pp. 46-47).
7
theories. He suggests that these different traditions provide “distinct ways of
conceptualizing and discussing communication problems and practices” (p.120).
Rather than simply highlighting the differences between each one; for example, semiotics
is the study of symbols and signs, while cybernetics is mainly concerned with information
processing, Craig (1999) also reflects on any common ground between them. Of
particular interest to research into oral communication is rhetorical theory as it deals with
issues of language, power, communication, knowledge, and persuasion. This does not
mean that other theoretical perspectives have nothing to offer this study. However, in one
small research project it is not possible to include them all. While this study is based in
rhetoric, a more contemporary understanding of this tradition allows for greater scrutiny of
language and meaning making. In particular, a more updated perspective, with a strong
association with the construction of reality over absolutes, provides a researcher with a
way of exploring previously held as well as current assumptions about a particular
phenomenon. These ideas are important to this study as it attempts to analyse the
instruction, language, and overall practices of assessing prepared oral presentations.
The references mentioned so far deal with communication theories; however, there is
another subset of theoretical resources that specifically address pedagogical aspects of
communication. As a basic way of thinking about theory, Wood (2000) suggests that
theory “offers an account of what something is, how it works, what it produces or causes
to happen, and what can change how it operates” (p. 33). Educational interest in
communication often involves looking at both theoretical aspects as well as practical
implications. This includes consideration of developing and assessing skills as a tangible
way of linking theory to practice.
As the following chapter will suggest, a more contemporary understanding of rhetoric has
led to increased interest in rhetorical theory and rhetorical criticism. However, what a
number of more recent scholars question is how such a renewed or reinvigorated interest
has affected rhetorical pedagogy? Glenn and Carcasson (2009) highlight the integral role
rhetoric has played in matters of education from ancient times:
Rhetoric has always been a teaching tradition ... competing theories and practices of
rhetoric were displayed and put to the test in the Greek academies of Gorgias,
Isocrates, Aspasia, Plato and Aristotle. Later it flourished as the centrepiece of the
8
Roman educational system made famous by such rhetorical greats as Cicero and
Quintilian. More than 2,000 years later, the pedagogy of rhetoric played a key role in
the early universities of the United States. (p. 285)
Yet, Glenn and Carcasson (2009), along with Fleming (1999) and Lunsford and Ede
(1984) query why the proliferation of more contemporary rhetorical theory has not
translated to renewed interest in rhetorical education? In particular, Lunsford and Ede
(1984) single out problems in the teaching of reading, speaking and writing. Their chief
criticism is the lack of theoretical considerations underpinning instruction in these areas.
In short, they point to a divide between theory and practice. “Most of our text books offer
compendia of ‘how-to’ tips but fail to ground that advice in a theoretical framework that
would relate language, action and belief” (p. 49). While their concerns were raised close
to thirty years ago, it is pertinent to ask how much has changed even if we expand ‘text
books’ to include online instructional opportunities?
More recently, Eunson (2008) acknowledges the importance of balancing theory and
practice stating that “we need theory to provide a foundation for the skills, just as we need
skills to demonstrate that the theories work” (p.vii). Without this solid connection to theory,
he also suggests that instruction in the area of communication can be extremely
problematic. In referring to a quick-fix approach to matters of communication, Eunson
(2008) uses words such as “superficial” “trite” “gimmicky” and “naïve” (p. vii). He is critical
of both an overly vapid or overly academic approach if application does not relate to real-
world experiences. His approach to effective communication in each of these areas is to
highlight the importance of fostering both knowledge and skills.
As a way of investigating theoretical concerns with oral communication and, in particular,
prepared oral presentations for assessment, the following chapter further explores the
significance of rhetoric to this study. It is not intended as an exhaustive summary or
history of the rhetorical tradition but rather highlights key ideas that have contributed and
influenced instructional approaches and feedback mechanisms when speaking in front of
others.
9
2
RHETORIC
For almost as long as people have practiced persuasion, others have written about it. And
for almost that long, it has aroused controversy. Simons (1986, p. 3)
2.1 Introduction
Rhetoric provides historical significance when investigating oral communication. As one
of the most ancient communication traditions, it is often presented in a chronological
manner beginning with influential scholarship from Ancient Greece and Rome (known as
Classical rhetoric) before moving to and through The Middle Ages, The Renaissance,
Age of Enlightenment, The Twentieth Century, and beyond. This ‘timeline approach’ often
highlights how rhetoric has either been ‘revered’ or ‘reviled’ at different times throughout
history:
Systematized by the early Romans, bastardized during the period of Rome’s decline,
left relatively dormant during the Middle Ages ... rediscovered during the
Renaissance, it [rhetoric] has at times been occupied with noble aims and at times
been identified with ‘making the worse appear the better reason’. (Simons, 1986, p.
3)
Following on from this is the idea that rhetoric’s influence ‘declined’ during the
enlightenment only to be revitalised during the 20th century. While providing necessary
scaffolding, recent scholars have questioned such a linear approach to understanding the
role and influence of rhetoric over the centuries. For one, Berlin (1994) suggests that
moving in such a sequential manner can overlook important economic, social and political
considerations of a particular moment in history, which can lead to a distorted
interpretation of rhetoric’s reach. In addition, a tendency to summarise or
compartmentalise major rhetorical ideas can lead to an over-simplistic view of how
rhetoric was construed at certain points in history. Therefore, rather than attempt an
‘historical account’ this chapter is discriminating, selecting specific ideas from both past
and present scholars that are deemed relevant to this current study, including initial
consideration of how the term ‘rhetoric’ is conceived.
10
For Fleming (1998) rhetoric can be described as either a “first-order” or “second-order”
phenomenon. To the first he ascribes more contemporary scholarship and states that is it
“roughly coextensive with such words as language, communication and persuasion” (p.
169). He distinguishes this from earlier definitions that take rhetoric to mean “an art of,
theory about, or schooling in language, communication or persuasion”. This is what he
means by a “second-order phenomenon” (p. 170). While at the core of both ‘phenomena’
is the importance of language, communication and persuasion; more contemporary
considerations have meant broadening the scope of rhetoric, beyond instructional
practices, to include the essential role it plays in everyday life.
A particular advocate of this expanded role of rhetoric is literary critic Wayne Booth who
suggests that much academic inquiry in the latter part of the twentieth century has taken
on a more inclusive view of rhetoric. For Booth (2004), “[r]hetoric, when defined as our
daily communication, dominates almost every moment of our lives ... and thus rhetorical
studies, travelling with diverse passports, are essential in all fields” (p. 34). Reference to
‘diverse passports’ points to an overlap across academic disciplines for it is more than
just those involved in rhetorical studies that are interested in what can or cannot be
achieved in ‘daily communication’. It is not surprising that such an approach has led to
increased scholarship in the area of rhetorical theory. In fact, the proliferation of
communication scholarship during the twentieth century led Brummett (2000) to conclude
that “there has been more innovative and important rhetorical theory written [in this
period] than at any other time since the ancient Greeks and Romans” (p. 671). Brummett
(2000) specifically makes mention of advances in technology that allows persuasive
messages to “reach millions” in seconds. (p. 672). He concedes that this has led to what
can be described as “more one-way rhetoric” in the sense that more and more people are
on the “receiving end” of such messages than actually making them (p. 672).
While such an abundance of messages has seen renewed interest in rhetorical theory, it
has also led to further research in the area of rhetorical criticism. For Foss (2009), a
simple definition of rhetoric is “the human use of symbols to communicate” (p. 3). She
sees this as the basis for understanding ‘rhetoric’ as well as rhetorical criticism. To this
she adds: “This definition includes three primary dimensions: (1) Humans as the creators
of rhetoric; (2) symbols as the medium of rhetoric; and (3) communication as the purpose
for rhetoric” (Foss, 2009, p. 3). For Foss (2009), one way of discovering more about
rhetoric is to engage in rhetorical criticism, that is to investigate how humans use symbols
11
to communicate a specific message. Therefore, rhetorical criticism assists in linking
theory to what can be observed in practice.
The rhetorical narrative is long, complex and ongoing. It is not surprising that multiple
definitions of rhetoric abound. However, for this study, Petelin’s (2009) broad explanation
provides a suitable starting point: “Rhetoric can be used critically to analyse messages
and creatively to gain greater effectiveness in one's expression, thereby providing a
complete system for generating and analysing discourse” (p. 126). This study deals with
how students are encouraged to gain ‘greater effectiveness as communicators’ which
involves being able to ‘generate’ as well as ‘analyse’ messages. Notwithstanding more
contemporary definitions that expand the scope of rhetoric, the rest of this chapter details
significant contributions from past and present scholars that specifically relate to matters
of instruction, beginning with the Ancients.
2.2 Rhetorical lessons from the past
Rhetoric has strong links to educational practices dating from the early Greeks where it
was seen as a “powerful force” in matters of legal, political, and ceremonial affairs (Bizzell
and Herzberg, 1990, p. 1). The very nature of these speaking opportunities, coupled with
an emphasis on civic responsibility meant those able to speak out4 were required to do so
in a convincing manner. While the ability to ‘influence’ others cannot be attributed to the
Ancient Greeks, scholarship surrounding rhetoric often begins with reference to this age.
In particular, the sixth to fourth centuries B.C.E. are acknowledged as pivotal in terms of
ideas and concepts connected to the study of rhetoric. Kennedy (1999) suggests that
three approaches to rhetoric emerged from this period. All three have links to instructional
practices evident today. The first was known as ‘technical rhetoric’. Identified as the most
“pragmatic” of the three approaches, “it shows how to present a subject efficiently and
effectively, but makes no attempt to judge the morality of the speaker and pays little
attention to the audience” (Kennedy, 1999, p. 14). Written material, such as technical
handbooks, assisted speakers in learning how to present a persuasive message. Such
instructional handbooks have continued to find favour throughout the centuries.
4 To actively participate in both political and social life, Ancient Greek citizens were required to speak publicly. However, there was a very restricted view of citizenship at this time. As McCroskey (2001) points out those able to speak in such arenas were restricted in terms of gender and class, essentially limiting the “theories of rhetoric” to a “very small proportion of the people in society” (p. 17).
12
Another approach to rhetoric that appeared during this golden age was known as
‘sophistic rhetoric’. Unlike ‘technical rhetoric’ the spotlight was on the speaker rather than
on the subject matter of a speech (Kennedy, 1999, p.14). Instructors in this approach
were known as ‘sophists’, which translates to “wise person” or “lover of wisdom”
(Brummett, 2000, p. 22). However the word ‘instructor’ presented problems, in particular
who could, or should, be afforded the term and what exactly was being taught? In
addition, allegations of only teaching gimmicks or tricks saw initial disputes about
substance over style. This assertion directly relates to the perceived role of rhetoric in
either conveying or creating knowledge. For the Sophists, the role of language in this
creation process was privileged, “because they [Sophists] saw knowledge as accessible
only through discourse, they practiced rhetoric as an intellectual method, a way of
generating knowledge” (Bizzell and Herzberg, 1990, p. 22). It is for these reasons that the
term ‘sophist’ has received dubious attention over the years. In today’s vernacular, it is
often used to suggest misleading or deceitful reasoning.5 But this narrow view of sophistry
is not shared by all. Kennedy (1999) concedes that while sophistic rhetoric is a “natural
spawning ground for amplification, elaborate conceits, and stylistic refinement” (p. 14), it
should not be so easily dismissed. He states that sophistic rhetoric also highlights the
“image of the ideal orator” (p. 14) who possesses the necessary qualities of leadership. It
is through this lens that sophistic rhetoric received renewed prominence in Roman times
and later still, during the Renaissance. For some modern researchers, the sophists’ view
that knowledge is conditional upon circumstance parallels contemporary notions
underlying the social construction of knowledge.
For scholars such as Plato (427-347 BCE), teaching either technical or sophistic rhetoric
was problematic. In privileging either ‘the speaker’ or ‘how to present content’, Plato
questioned the validity or legitimacy of what actually made up the message. In other
words, what was the connection with ‘truth’ and in turn, ‘knowledge’? Plato makes a
distinction between what he perceived as ‘bad’ and ‘good’ rhetoric (Bizzell and Herzberg,
1990, p. 27). To the former he attributes speaking opportunities that are built on
“provisional truth” or “probable knowledge”; where the actual situation (Kairos) of the
event has the potential to influence what is said (Bizzell and Herzberg, 1990, p. 28). So
5 It is not difficult to find examples of the term ‘sophistry’ being used in the pejorative sense in modern reporting, For example, “We always knew John Howard didn't mean it when he said he served by grace and favour of his party but at least his sophistry had an element of restraint about it” (Farnsworth, 2011).
13
called ‘good rhetoric’ could only be achieved when words such as ‘provisional’ and
‘probable’ were taken out of the equation. This is summed up by Bizzell and Herzberg
(1990) who state that for Plato: “True rhetoric … actually becomes the method whereby
the philosopher and his pupil free themselves from the conventional and all worldly
encumbrances in the pursuit and eventual attainment of absolute truth” (p. 28). To be
able to achieve, or at the very least pursue, ‘absolute truth’, Plato favoured what he
considered the more logical approach to developing an argument known as the dialectic
method which followed a question and answer format. As evidenced in his dialogue
Phaedrus, (written by Plato in around 370 BCE), knowledge is uncovered through the
back and forth exchange between a younger and older man. Bizzell and Herzberg (1990)
describe the method as similar to “clearing away the conventional underbrush so that the
truth can be seen” (p. 28). In short, Plato was vocal in his condemnation of teaching mere
‘techniques’ in relation to sounding convincing, rather than encouraging communication
practices that honoured the pursuit of truth. His concerns went further than an uneasy
tension between performance and communication, but also raised questions of ethics and
responsibility. It is for these reasons that when describing rhetoric, Plato chose to use
words such as ‘ornamental’ or ‘cosmetic’.6
However Plato’s student, Aristotle, (384 BCE to 322 BCE) was not convinced that such
absolute truth could be achieved through either dialectic or rhetoric. One of the earliest
and oft-cited definitions of rhetoric (to which many more have been added over the
centuries) was put forward by Aristotle (trans. 2007) who saw it as, “an ability, in each
[particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion” (2.1.1). While this definition is
often condensed to simply stating that ‘rhetoric is the art of persuasion’, it is useful to
consider the fuller context. For Aristotle, rhetoric specifically dealt with ‘discovering’ the
arguments that would best meet the needs of a particular audience and speaking
situation. It was therefore not contingent on matters of ‘absolute truth’ because not all
communication exchanges dealt with fixed meanings.
6 In reference to the word ‘ornamental’, Burton (2007b) suggests an alternative interpretation to that of being merely ‘decorative’. He states that the Latin root of the word is “ornare” which means “to equip” thus making “the ornaments of rhetoric … the equipment required to achieve the intended meaning or effect” (Burton, 2007b, para. 8).
14
Issues relating to ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’ led to a third way rhetoric was conceived in
Ancient Greece, known as “philosophical” rhetoric (Kennedy, 1999, p. 14). In providing
some definition of philosophical rhetoric, Kennedy (1999) writes:
It tended to deemphasize the speaker and to stress the validity of the message and
the effect on an audience . . . Philosophical rhetoric has close ties to with dialectic
and logic, to ethics and political theory, and sometimes to psychology. Its natural
topic is deliberation about the best needs of the audience. (pp. 14-15)
Kennedy (1999) suggests that Aristotle’s Rhetoric was written in the “philosophical
tradition” while still including ideas associated with technical rhetoric (p. 15). Aristotle
provided a systematic approach to the teaching of rhetoric in this treatise. Some have
suggested that this work was the cornerstone of what later become known as the
discipline of speech communication (Foss, Foss & Trapp, 1991, p. 4).
This brief account of technical, sophistic and philosophical rhetoric uncovers a number of
issues that have had ongoing interest in rhetorical scholarship. Issues related to
substance and style (or content and delivery), the importance of audience, and the role of
rhetoric in constructing or conveying knowledge. It also highlights the controversial nature
of rhetoric from the earliest of times. For example, the importance Plato placed on
‘absolute truth’ came with a prerequisite, that is, a person engaged in this pursuit must be
of worthy standing and intellect. This relates to issues of power and leads to questions
such as ‘what is knowledge’, ‘who has knowledge’ and, even, ‘who has the right to be
heard’. In terms of instructional considerations, all three questions are relevant.
In both Ancient Greece and Rome, the development of the ‘ideal orator’ involved
rhetorical instruction and training. This meant understanding the strategies or heuristics
associated with rhetorical discourse. Lauer (2004) states that since that time rhetoricians
have pondered the relative importance of four approaches to teaching effective or
persuasive communication. In addition to direct training, she identifies imitation (where
students are encouraged to imitate popular or well-crafted speeches); regular practice,
and finally the role of natural ability (p. 45). For Quintilian (trans. 1920), “natural gifts” was
seen as important but of “no profit in themselves unless cultivated by skilful teaching,
persistent study and continuous and extensive practice” (1 Pr. 27). Quintilian’s advice is
of ongoing pedagogical interest in the development of the effective communicator.
15
2.2.1 The Classical Canons
While theory underpinning what constitutes an effective speaker or rhetor has varied, how
best to instruct those charged with speaking in front of others has always been of
pedagogical interest. Hence, rhetoric’s longstanding association with matters of
education. For the purposes of this study, the Classical Canons will be briefly considered
in terms of how they have been represented over the years. Again, this is not presented
as a timeline but rather as a way of highlighting key ideas that influenced matters of
instruction throughout the centuries, many of which are still discussed today. A number of
classical writers, including Aristotle and the Roman rhetorician Cicero (106 BCE to 43
BCE), contributed to what is now known as the Classical Canons7 (Corbett, 1990). For
Cicero, they offered a way of defining rhetoric as “one great art comprised of five lesser
arts: invention, disposition [arrangement], elocution [style], memoria, [memory] and
pronunciatio [delivery]” (as cited in Booth, 2004, p.5). Cicero (trans. 1888) provides a
summary of the canons in De Inventione:
Invention, is the conceiving of topics either true or probable, which may make one's
cause appear probable; Arrangement, is the distribution of the topics which have
been thus conceived with regular order; Elocution, is the adaptation of suitable words
and sentences to the topics so conceived; Memory, is the lasting sense in the mind
of the matters and words corresponding to the reception of these topics; Delivery, is
a regulating of the voice and body in a manner suitable to the dignity of the subjects
spoken of and of the language employed. (1.7)
The connection to ‘art’ reflects the notion of something that can be taught (Lauer, 2004, p.
46). One way of studying rhetoric over the centuries is to look at how these five ‘lesser
arts’ have been treated separately and as a whole. While Aristotle’s Rhetoric includes
advice pertaining to invention, arrangement, style and delivery, it predominately deals
with invention or “the finding of materials and modes of proof to use in presenting those
materials to an audience” (Foss et al, 1991, p. 4). This idea is similar to Aristotle’s
overarching definition of rhetoric which is to discover the available means of persuasion.
In discovering these means, consideration is given to the interrelationship between
purpose, context, speaker, message and audience. Aristotle (trans. 2007) is credited with
7 Originally, these five elements were seen to assist in the preparation of a persuasive message. More recent research has also suggested their usefulness in analysing messages.
16
stipulating the means that a speaker must employ when presenting a persuasive
message to others:
Of the pisteis provided through speech there are three species: for some are in the
character [ethos] of the speaker, and some in disposing the listener in some way
[pathos], and some in the argument [logos] itself, by showing or seeming to show
something. (1.2.3)
These proofs or appeals have more recently been presented as an equilateral triangle.
Figure 1: The Rhetorical Triangle
This simple graphic illustrates that a persuasive message cannot be produced through
content alone, but also depends on speaker credibility and an understanding of the
audience. Interaction between speaker, message and audience has continued as a
fundamental tenet for any public speaking instruction today. In fact reference to ethos,
pathos and logos can be readily found in many modern resource books dealing with
speaking in front of others. As part of the invention process, Aristotle stipulates the
importance of appealing to logos as a way of demonstrating overall reasoning or “rational
arguments” (Bizzell and Herzberg, 1990, p4). In particular Aristotle highlighted the
importance of the enthymeme as a way of presenting a logical appeal. The enthymeme
provides for reasoned arguments without absolutes. It relies on audience members to be
part of the reasoning process by “supply[ing] and endors[ing] premises that are missing
from the argument but left implicit” (Simons, 2001, p. 158).
Speaker (ethos) Audience (pathos)
Message (logos)
17
While Aristotle’s work dealt specifically with ‘discovering’ or ‘inventing’ suitable
arguments, it also mentions delivery. However, for some writers, his treatment of this
canon was less complimentary, claiming that it was similar to acting (Bizzell and
Herzberg, 1990, p. 7). The potential for a speaker to deliver a message that is ‘improper’
is highlighted when Aristotle (trans. 2007) states that “delivery seems a vulgar matter
when rightly understood” (3.1.5). Delivery in this sense seems to suggest mere
performance qualities along with a capacity to deceive. But for Aristotle, delivery was a
necessary evil that needed to be respected. This relates to the very nature of rhetoric
being about probability rather than absolutes and the speaker’s overall responsibility to
those listening. Therefore, for Aristotle (trans. 2007) delivery “has great power . . .
because of the [potential] corruption of the audience” (3.1.5).
The Roman contribution to the Classical Canons came specifically in the work of Cicero,
Quintilian (35-95 A.D.), and the unknown author of Rhetorica Ad Herennium8. While seen
more as “borrowers” than originators, these authors further developed the main rhetorical
ideas of Ancient Greek scholars (Foss et al, 1991, p. 5). For example, the Ad Herennium
is seen as a classic school-based text emphasising practical considerations of rhetoric
rather than advancing much theory (Foss et al, 1991, p. 5). Meantime, Cicero built on an
understanding of style, in particular language choices, with the identification of three
distinct styles – ‘plain’, ‘moderate’ or ‘grand’; while Quintilian, an early advocate for life-
long learning, provided further instruction for the “citizen-orator” offering training from ‘the
cradle to the grave’ in Institutes of Oratory (93 A.D.) (Foss et al, 1991, p. 5).
While rhetorical scholarship during the Roman Empire may have drawn heavily from the
Greeks, it was a significant era in rhetoric’s record. For one, it is seen to provide a more
‘prescriptive’ account of the Classical Canons. For example, the author of Rhetorica ad
Herennium (trans. 1954) seemed less preoccupied with the potential impropriety of
delivery and instead suggested the ‘interdependence’ of each canon:
8 The authorship of Rhetorica ad Herennium is disputed. While some suggest it may have been based on some of Cicero’s teachings, it is not known who actually wrote the book.
18
For skilful invention, elegant style, the artistic arrangement of the parts comprising
the case, and the careful memory of all these will be of no more value without
delivery, than delivery alone and independent of these. (3.11.19)
Furthermore, in De Oratore, Cicero (trans. 1942) stressed the importance of delivery in
conveying the emotional content of a message:
It is impossible for the listener to feel indignation, hatred or ill-will, to be terrified of, or
reduced to tears of compassion, unless all those emotions, that the advocate would
inspire in the arbitrator, are visibly stamped or rather branded on the advocate
himself. (2.44.189)
For Cicero, rhetoric was not just an ‘art’ but a “powerful political weapon” (Bizzell and
Herzberg, 1990, p. 8). However, by Quintilian’s time, political unrest in Rome saw the
censoring of such civic oratory. Bizzell and Herzberg (1990) suggest that by the end of
the Roman Empire, “rhetoric became a form of entertainment, focused on stylistic
extravagance” (p. 8). From Aristotle’s caution about the potential ‘vulgarity’ of delivery, to
the unknown author of Rhetorica Ad Herennium’s suggestion that delivery is just as
valuable as the other four ‘arts’, the importance placed on each canon has been of
ongoing debate. It has often led to a truncated version of the canons being presented
over the years, where one or more have been privileged. As with Rome’s example, this
often came about because of political, social or cultural attitudes that prevailed at a
particular moment in history.
2.2.2 The Canons beyond the Classical Period
Political, social and cultural implications of a given time continued to influence the scope
of rhetoric throughout the centuries. In the Middle Ages, rhetoric was specifically
associated with education, letter writing and preaching. University education during this
period involved instruction in the three liberal arts of logic, grammar, and rhetoric.
Rhetoric’s central place in the curriculum saw it particularly deal with practical rather than
theoretical matters (Foss et al, 1991, p. 6). Letter writing, a necessary diplomatic form of
communication of the day, also took on rhetorical importance in terms of how best to
construct and present such missives. It was in relation to preaching that rhetoric met with
controversy. The Christian church, which flourished in the first century A.D., provided a
belief system that was based in divine truth. Such truth was non-negotiable and therefore
19
rhetoric, with its emphasis on ‘possible knowledge’, was viewed with scepticism. This
particularly had implications for the canon of invention for what use was a tool of
‘discovery’ when absolutes were already known? However, for the classically educated St
Augustine (354-430 A.D.), rhetoric provided a powerful way of communicating the
Christian message without sacrificing truth. He is credited with accepting rhetoric’s
persuasive potential rather than generating or advancing any new ideas on the subject.
Following St Augustine’s death, the scholar Boethius (480-524 or 525 A.D.) included the
work of the ancients in his writings about rhetoric. Yet, as Bizzell and Herzberg (1990)
state, he only produced very brief summaries of much rhetorical theory. They suggest
that this criticism of the treatment of rhetorical theory persisted for many years to come.
As evident, a long list of scholars has contributed to this communication tradition.
Different scholars from different locations9 have brought with them different approaches
and ideals which have had ongoing implications for how rhetoric has been viewed as well
as taught. During the Renaissance (1400-1600 A.D.), Lauer (2004) suggests that
rhetorical pedagogy was approached in two distinct ways. The first involved reconnecting
with “the Aristotelian view of art and its importance for education” (p. 58). However, even
with the discovery and subsequent translation of classical texts, issues surrounding ‘what
is truth’ continued to be debated. This again related to the canon of invention and its role
in attaining knowledge or disseminating what is already known. Reconnecting or
rediscovering the work of the ancients was not favoured by all. In fact the second way
rhetoric was realised during the Renaissance was to remove the canon of invention
altogether (Lauer, 2004). Coming under the banner of Rationalism, the French scholar
Peter Ramus (1515-1572) shifted the canons of invention and arrangement from rhetoric
to dialectic or logic. For Ramus (trans. 1986), rhetoric was concerned only with matters of
style and delivery:
There are two parts of rhetoric: Style (elocutio) and Delivery (pronuntiatio); these are
of course the only parts, the ones proper to the art. . . Rhetoric therefore will keep
this particular task, that it takes the matter found and related by Dialectic, and laid out
in clear and correct speech by Grammar, and then it embellishes it with the
9 For the purposes of this thesis, rhetoric is considered from a European and North American tradition.
20
splendour of the ornaments of style, and renders it acceptable with the grace of vocal
tone and gesture. (p. 27)
As Bizzell and Herzberg (1990) state, “dialectic would thus grasp the truth (through the
syllogism), while rhetoric would offer it to the public (p. 9). This separation influenced the
study of rhetoric for years to come. As Connors, Ede and Lunsford (1984) point out; it
was the work of Ramus (rather than Aristotle, Cicero or Quintilian) that influenced
rhetorical instruction at the first North American university (Harvard) in the seventeenth
century (p. 1). However the debate remained a rolling one. In contrast to Ramus, Francis
Bacon (1561-1626) questioned the ability of the syllogism to discover something that is
not already known (Bizzell and Herzberg, 1990, p. 10). While Bacon’s notion of rhetoric
included all five canons, his understanding of invention was in keeping with a more
scientific approach to knowledge that prospered in the seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries. Bizzell and Herzberg (1990) state that this led Bacon to view “inquiry as the
work of science, and recovery, as the work of rhetorical invention” (p. 10). This again
opened up questions of knowledge and truth and, specifically, the role of language in
uncovering or creating any type of discourse. These issues continue to fuel many
academic discussions today.
Classical rhetoric again found favour in educational circles in the eighteenth century
reaching “full bloom” by the end of that century (Connors et al, 1984, p. 2). These writers
state that smaller class sizes, the use of oral assessment and the growing number of
student debate societies contributed to this occurrence. They also suggest that
“curriculums that lacked rigid boundaries between subjects” (p. 2) also meant that rhetoric
was not pigeon-holed but rather had a central place in teaching and learning as a whole.
However, the very reasons that rhetoric was seen to ‘flourish’ during this period were also
seen to contribute to its decline. In the nineteenth century, and in line with the German
model of higher education, North American universities began to set up disciplines or
departments with a specific focus on a particular area. It was difficult to find a ‘home’ for
rhetoric in this new system for it was “less suited than any other subject to specialization”
(Connors et al, 1984, p. 3). In addition, increased university enrolments meant larger
class sizes and the need for renewed thought on how best to teach and assess:
The earlier colleges had nothing resembling our present written examinations and set
themes, preferring instead to test students’ skills in oral discourse. But large classes
21
demanded that teachers find ways to save time and standardize procedures; hence
the rise of written examination and essays. (Connors et al, 1984, p. 4)
This was particularly the case with the new departments of English. Rhetoric became
synonymous with composition which led to a proliferation of writing textbooks, many of
which favoured prescriptive guidelines. In relation to the Classical Canons, an emphasis
on composition (writing) meant sustained interest in the first three elements of invention,
arrangement and style. However, also in the eighteenth century a group of British
scholars began to look more closely at the canon of delivery. The elocution movement, as
it became known, was a reaction to the perceived lack of public speaking ability on behalf
of preachers, lawyers and other leaders of the day. Foss et al (1991) suggests that while
elocutionists acknowledged the importance of invention, much of their work was
concerned with “prescriptive” and “highly mechanical techniques for the management of
voice and gestures” (p. 10). This rather narrow and controlled approach to matters of
delivery is still evident today.
Meantime, the early twentieth century is seen as a turning point in the area of speech
communication. In North American universities, the focus of English Departments was
literature and compositions studies. As Connors et al (1984) state: “Scholars of rhetoric
and speech increasingly found themselves unwelcome strangers in the halls they had
once ruled” (p. 4). A group of teachers committed to ‘oral rhetoric’ moved away from
English Departments and in 1914 set up the National Association of Academic Teachers
of Public Speaking (which after a number of name changes is now known as the National
[North American] Communication Association). From the very beginning, this new group
was plagued by internal conflict concerning the direction of the association. Some
members believed the focus should be on a classical understanding of public speaking;
while others favoured a more scientific approach to the study of speech (Foss et al, 1991,
p 12). Despite these early disagreements, speech departments in the 1920s and 30s are
credited with reigniting research in classical rhetoric. From this time, rhetorical
scholarship enters a whole new era.
As both Connors et al (1984) and Foss et al (1991) state, there are a number of reasons
that heralded a ‘revival’ of rhetorical interest in academic circles in the mid twentieth
century, including the impact of World War Two (and a general concern with propaganda
and persuasion) as well as a new understanding of what was meant by mass
22
communication. Furthermore, universities also began offering courses in communication
which incorporated writing, listening, reading and speaking. Foss et al (1991) highlight a
specific shift within English studies during this time, “away from a primary emphasis on
the finished product of a composition to the composing process and the transaction
between writer and audience involved in the process” (p. 12). To this they add that
“English scholars, like those in speech, draw on a variety of disciplines for theoretical
input about rhetoric, including linguistics, semiotics, semantics, psycholinguistics,
anthropology, and biology” (p. 12). Such expanded interest underlines the dynamic and
ongoing relevance of rhetoric in what Booth (2004) calls our daily lives. Such diversity
also acknowledges a more encompassing understanding of rhetoric as used in this study
as a way of ‘generating and analysing discourse’. While recognising the enormous value
of more recent research into rhetoric, at this point I return to my discussion of the
Classical Canons and pick up on recurring issues in relation to substance and style, and
the more ‘problematic’ canons of memory and delivery.
2.3 Contemporary considerations and challenges
As already suggested, rhetoric is an extremely rich and diverse area with available
resources and ideas dating back thousands of years. Such a longstanding tradition allows
for past ideas to be constantly re-examined and reinterpreted. For example, an emphasis
on ‘persuasion’ in ancient times has seen Aristotelian rhetoric referred to as ‘one-sided’ or
‘monologic’. However, Lunsford and Ede (1984) dispute this suggesting that “a more
accurate way to describe Aristotle’s concept of the goal of rhetoric is as an interactive
means of discovering meaning through language” (p. 44). Richards (2008) also cautions
against applying a narrow interpretation to the work of the ancients. By way of example,
she puts forward the ideas of Cicero and suggests that for this Roman scholar; rhetoric
was not just an ‘art’ but had much deeper concerns that in fact linked oratory and
philosophy. Richards (2008) goes on to tease this out further:
I want to pause over this unanticipated alternative approach to rhetoric in antiquity,
According to this view, rhetoric is more than a taxonomy of linguistic devices and
persuasive strategies; it is also a process of argument, a way of thinking which
understands that all positions are ultimately arguable. (p. 13)
Both approaches acknowledge the ongoing role of rhetoric as a way of engaging in bigger
picture issues surrounding communication. However, an expanded view of rhetoric, along
23
with resources dating back thousands of years, also presents challenges. To cope with
such a wealth of information, summaries are often made. One of the dangers of
condensing large quantities of information into ‘manageable chunks’ is that simple
explanations can miss out on the underlying complexity of the message. For example, the
definition of memory put forward by Cicero (trans. 1888) in De Inventione is, “the lasting
sense in the mind of the matters and words corresponding to the reception of these
topics” (1.7). This is very different to the way Thompson (1998) describes memory as the
“Greek-Roman habit of memorising speeches” (p. 6). Can the canon of memory be
equated with mere memorisation? Burton’s (2007a) view is that memory must be
recognised in relation to audience. He draws on the unknown author of Rhetorica Ad
Herennium who states that memory is the “treasury of things invented” (as cited in
Burton, 2007a, para. 1). He sees this as connecting memory to the canon of invention. In
expanding on this idea, Burton (2007a) suggests that memory was in fact a “requisite for
becoming peritus dicendi, [or] well-versed in speaking”, and that this was only achievable
if the speaker “had a vast deal of information on hand to be brought forth appropriately
and effectively given the circumstances and the audience” (para. 3). This intimately
connects memory to both speaker and audience. How the speaker has crafted a
message to meet the overall context and purpose for speaking; as well as how those
listening will be able to “retain things in mind” (Burton, 2007a, para. 4). This is backed up
by Fritz and Weaver (1984) who also stress the importance of memory because it helps
both “the audience and speaker remember content” (p. 7).
In addition to the controversy surrounding the canon of memory, delivery has also
received a mixed response over the years. Kennedy (1980) points out that in the
Rhetorica Ad Herennium, delivery was in fact placed ahead of memory to signal its higher
status. Kennedy (1980) uses the story of Demosthenes to illustrate this point. Apparently
when this Greek orator was asked to describe the “three most important things in oratory”
his response was “Delivery, delivery and delivery” (as cited in Kennedy, 1980, p. 98).
However, this was not always the case. An abbreviated approach to the canons saw
delivery become synonymous with “effective gestures and voice modulation” (Bizzell and
Herzberg, 1990, pp. 4-5). While this definition is part of the delivery process it fails to
connect how something is said to what is actually said. This perceived tension has been
at the core of rhetoric over the centuries; that is, the relationship between substance and
style or content and delivery. Burton (2007b) provides an overview of this under the
heading of content and form. He refers to the different terminology used by authors when
24
dealing with these two ideas, including Aristotle’s logos (content) and lexis (style and
delivery); and Quintilian’s res (substance) and verba (verbal expression). In attempting to
separate form from content or vice versa, he offers the following:
The divide between form and content is always an artificial and conditional one, since
ultimately attempting to make this division reveals the fundamentally indivisible
nature of verbal expression and ideas. (Burton, 2007b, para. 5)
In summary, Burton (2007b) points to the “interdependence of language and meaning,
argument and ornament, thought and its expression” (para. 9) and that any attempt to
look at content and delivery separately only serves to emphasise this necessary
connection. As evident in the previous section, at times rhetoric has been tantamount to
nothing more than delivery. For the likes of Plato and Ramus this was concerned with
matters of knowledge and truth, however, another way this can be viewed is through the
perceived divide between written and spoken communication. As indicated, education in
the nineteenth and twentieth century, favoured the written word. It is not surprising that
memory and delivery was seen as less important in instructional material. For example,
Corbett’s popular book Classical rhetoric for the Modern Student (first published in 1965)
dismisses the canon of memory altogether. As Welch (1993) suggests, a common
explanation for this occurrence is that this canon (along with delivery) is only relevant in
“orally dominant cultures” (p. 19). Welch (1993) questions this and goes on to provide
more inclusive and contemporary considerations of memory and delivery in relation to
communication in general. She also suggests that “the split between the oral and the
written is not as convenient as many commentators would have it” (1993, p. 19). This
point is pertinent to this study and will be further addressed.
2.4 Oral communication and the written word
Throughout the centuries rhetoric has been dealt with in many ways. An argument often
posited is that oral communication was at the heart of ‘classical’ rhetoric and that over the
years, writing and then the subsequent invention of mass production of written texts
necessitated a shift in focus, or at least a broader understanding of what is meant by
persuasive communication. The relationship between the written and spoken word
provides another way of addressing the historical perspective of rhetoric. This association
goes deeper than mere markings on a page. Alexander (2000) joins a number of writers
(Ong, 1982, Casaregola 1992) who see the difficulty of envisioning the world today
25
without the printed word. But this was not always the case. The process of writing came
from an oral base and a written culture did not simply replace an oral one. For example,
in Ancient Greece, while handwriting may have been an acquired skill of a select few, it
“co-existed with the retention of central features of orality” (Alexander, 2000, p. 168). As
opposed to current practices, writing was not so much “perused as pronounced” (p.
168).There was an inextricable link between what was said, heard, and written. As
Manguel (1996) notes:
Until well into the Middle Ages, writers assumed that their readers would hear rather
than simply see the text, much as they themselves spoke their words out loud as
they composed them. (p. 47)
In fact, the early use of punctuation sees an overlap between written and spoken
messages with initial marks used to indicate a need for breath rather than the breaking up
of words into sense groups (Ong as cited in Alexander, 2000, p.169). As more and more
people became literate, there was no longer a need for such vocalisation during reading
and this changed the way people interacted with a written script. For one, the ability to
read silently also meant the ability for an individual to ‘backloop’; that is, to reread specific
sections of a text for clarification or understanding. As Alexander (2000) notes, this
changed the need for “concentrated listening” [that would have been] “required in an oral
culture” (p. 169). A second consequence concerned how information was passed on.
Even more so than handwriting, the invention and proliferation of print conveyed a more
consistent interpretation of events (including news, history and stories). Alexander (2000)
suggests that this had a profound effect on thinking, and states that, in particular,
“[c]onsciousness itself was gradually re-structured so that thinking became linear and
syntax-governed.” (p. 169). For example, the importance of punctuation no longer needed
to signal where to breathe, but rather was used as a way of “standardizing” written text.
The development of print also changed how information could be stored. As more and
more people learnt to read, the scope, complexity, and potential sharing of information
suddenly knew no bounds. This no longer confines discussion to a so-called oral and
written divide, but shows the extent of influence of such technology (writing and printing)
on society as a whole. It is from this premise that Casaregola (1992) argues that we are
so “bound by the conventions of a print-based culture that it is almost impossible to
recreate the spirit of the highly dynamic, ancient art form of rhetoric” (p. 3).
26
As mentioned earlier, rhetoric is often linked to persuasion or influence. Therefore, this
means consideration of some kind of ‘audience’10 to be persuaded or influenced.
Expanding the scope of rhetoric to include written and visual material can still involve
consideration of ‘audience’. However the synchronous nature of oral communication
compared to an asynchronous approach with writing prompted Ong (1977) to state that
the “writer’s audience is always a fiction” (p. 55). So while audience (or reader) can be
considered at the time of preparation for both orator and writer, context is extended for
the orator to include the immediacy of speaking to a group of listening others. The
ancients made mention of the necessity of choosing language that is appropriate for
either a written or oral context. In particular, Aristotle (trans. 2007) offered the following
advice concerning the difference between written and spoken language in terms of
meeting an overall communication purpose:
On comparison, some written works seem thin when spoken, while some speeches
of orators seem amateurish when examined in written form. This cause is that [their
style] suits debate. Thus, things that are intended for delivery, when delivery is
absent, seem silly, since they are not fulfilling their purpose. For example, asyndeta
and constant repetition are rightly criticised in writing but not in speaking, and the
orators use them, for they lend themselves to oral delivery. (3.12.2)
While the focus of this thesis is oral communication, the connection with written
communication cannot be overlooked; in particular, the reliance of many speakers on a
written script and what this means for the ‘oral’ nature of such presentations.
2.5 Conclusion
An updated and expanded view reinforces the notion that rhetoric is not just about
equipping a speaker to present a persuasive message but can also be used to analyse
any message of influence. At the core of both approaches is the vital role of language.
That is, while an understanding of rhetoric is still recognised as a valuable way of
teaching about effective oral presentations, the tools of rhetoric can also be used to
explore what actually constitutes an effective presentation. To help with this, the language
of both instruction and feedback needs to be scrutinised.
10 The word audience comes from the Latin audi meaning ‘to hear’. Ong points out that this word has now come to embrace a much broader definition to include both viewing and listening. He also suggests that there is no similar word for a group of readers rather than readership.
27
The rest of this literature review is presented with consideration of rhetorical ideas from
the past and present. Before addressing the terms ‘oral presentation’ and ‘oral
presentation assessment’, it is essential to first investigate what is meant by oral
communication. Again, this provides enormous potential for investigation and must be
narrowed for the sake of one study. To provide a framework for this, the focus is on oral
communication skills in the area of employment. This has been identified for two reasons:
First, the pedagogical importance placed on the ‘life-long learner’ and how this includes
involvement in future employment and second, the extensive literature that supports the
need for effective oral communication in the area of employment.
The importance of equipping students to become life-long learners is well documented in
the literature and includes the need to develop effective oral communication skills. This
link is not in question, what is, however, is what comprises these skills and how they are
realised in both teaching and learning circles. What follows is an examination of the
literature in relation to guidelines and definitions on offer in the areas of ‘oral
communication’, ‘oral presentation’, and ‘oral presentation for assessment’. In addition,
this review explores some of the tensions associated with identifying what it means to
orally communicate a message.
28
3
COMMUNICATING ORALLY
3.1 Focus on oral communication skills
At its most basic level, oral communication can be described as the “ability to
communicate effectively to a range of different audiences in a variety of different
contexts,” suggests the University of New South Wales (n.d.). This very general definition
allows for numerous speaking opportunities to be considered when looking at the need to
develop effective oral skills, from small group discussions to formal speaking in front of
many. As indicated in the previous chapters, the need to develop effective oral
communication skills is a common theme across the education literature. For Young and
Travis (2004) such skills enable us “to move through life with self-confidence and a
feeling of accomplishment” (p. 3) while Manuel (2004) takes it further by suggesting we
will be enabled to become “co-creators of the world” (p. 73). She lists a number of
desirable traits that are gained including the ability to “think, reflect and articulate
experience” (p. 73). These general benefits are given a specific focus when considered in
light of participation in future work-related tasks. This link is particularly highlighted in the
university sector.
As mentioned in the introduction, universities, such as Deakin, QUT, Curtin and the
University of Queensland, regularly cite good communication skills (both written and oral)
on lists of essential graduate capabilities. This is reinforced by employers who also
regularly include the ability to communicate as a key selection criteria for employment.
Eunson (2008) cites a 2006 Australian survey where employers rated the interpersonal
and communication skills (written and oral) of potential employees as the highest
requirement at 57.5%. The next closest was academic qualifications at 35.4% (p. iv). In
exploring what is actually meant by communication skills, Eunson (2008) provides a
broad definition, “the study of the transfer of meaning” (p. 2). This again allows for a
variety of communication types to be considered including writing skills, public speaking
and presentation skills, intercultural communication, body language and non-verbal
communication (Eunson, 2008, p. 2). He suggests that such skills and knowledge are
best described as “non-technical” because they are not confined to one particular area of
expertise. This enables them to be referred to as “transferable”, “soft” or “generic”
(Eunson, 2008, p.3) because of their central role in many work-related tasks.
29
According to the Transferable Skills project (2006), established by three Irish higher
education facilities, transferable skills are, “the kinds of skills which are necessary for
effective performance by individuals, not only in the workplace but in life in general” (para
2). Such a definition suggests that the need to develop transferable skills is a significant
pedagogical issue. Even a brief scan of Australian universities, including Monash (2011),
Bond (2010), Adelaide (2011), RMIT (2008), and QUT (2011) easily locates references to
the importance placed on transferable skills to equip students for changing and diverse
career paths. Bond University (2010) offers the following justification, “[a] good university
teacher prepares students for a future beyond the university. The aim of a university
education extends above and beyond the skills, knowledge, and attributes of a particular
discipline” (p. 16). Again, this points to the importance placed on developing skills that will
go beyond the classroom and support the life-long learner. There is no exhaustive list of
transferable skills because the variety and scope of such skills are so broad. However,
the area of communication is frequently included on such lists as both Eunson (2008) and
the Transferable Skills Project (2006) indicate. The vast range of skills that can fit under
the banner of communication presents challenges for educators and students involved in
the learning and teaching process. This is particularly the case in the area of oral
communication.
Gray, Emerson and Mackay (2007) refer to numerous studies over the last two decades
that support the inclusion of oral communication training at the university level, much of
which has been generated from North America. In addition, they refer to studies from
Australia and New Zealand that link effective student oral communication skills to the
needs of future employment. The list of potential generic work-related activities requiring
oral communication skills is diverse, from formal presentations to participating in teams
(Crosling and Ward, 2002) to attending job interviews, chairing meetings, and speaking at
seminars (Van Emden and Becker, 2004). In summary, proficiency in the area of oral
communication is widely recognised as being essential in the workplace.
The scope and associated benefits of developing, or at least possessing, effective oral
communication skills are widened with the inclusion of personal situations as well as
areas of employment (Levin and Topping, 2006; Sprague and Stuart 2005; Abbott and
Godinho, 2001). For example, Young and Travis (2004) state such oral skills are not just
needed in more public communication but at the interpersonal level as well. As one
university oral communication resource guide states, “interpersonal communication
30
involves interacting effectively with others to achieve a particular outcome” (UNSW, n.d).
The notion of achieving a particular outcome is in line with the rhetorical perspective of
oral communication, that of being ‘persuasive’. McCarthy and Hatcher’s (2002) view is
that “most speaking opportunities have persuasive intentions” (p. 2) and that speakers
must make intentional choices about how they will present their ideas, as well as what
they will present. This relates to both one-on-one exchanges as well as more formal
situations, such as prepared oral presentations.
Such an all-inclusive approach to oral communication makes it difficult to define what is
actually meant by ‘effective oral skills’. Associated lists often produce very basic, if not
vague, expectations surrounding how to communicate effectively. Gray et al (2007)
consider the generality of some teaching practices in the area of oral communication as
problematic. They are skeptical of the usefulness of “stand-alone courses in oral
communication” (p. 3) and the teaching of general skills within universities to adequately
address individual employer concerns in this area. The literature overwhelmingly states
that employers want graduates who can ‘speak effectively’ but Gray et al (2007) ponder
exactly what skills are being sought? They suggest that when employers participate in
such surveys, the frame of reference with regard to ‘communication skills’ is very broad:
When responding to questions, the surveyed employers might have had in mind
solely written communication skill, or interpersonal communication skill, or oral
communication skill, or a combination. For researchers specifically interested in oral
communication, these results are too general to be enlightening. (p. 3)
Following on from this, how can a diverse range of potential workplace speaking
opportunities (as described by Crosling and Ward, 2002; and Van Emden and Becker,
2004) be adequately addressed through reference to a need to develop ‘effective oral
communication skills’? The paradox is that while oral communication is seen as an
essential life skill, many writers are still critical of its treatment in schools and the
academy. Eunson (2008) laments inactivity on behalf of educators to adequately address
the issue of communication skills. Levin and Topping (2006) also question the lack of
attention in higher education to developing confident speaking skills. Meantime, Crosling
and Ward (2002) suggest that graduates are not being prepared for the variety of
workplace oral communication that they will face. With regard to secondary school
education, Barrass (2006) suggests that many high school leavers enter university
31
without adequate oral or written communication skills. Further to this, Abbott and Godinho
(2001) believe that basic skills in oral communication are “overlooked” in schools because
“of the priority given to the written mode” (p. vi). They single out an “overcrowded
curriculum” (p. vi) as a main reason for this.
From the literature, it is evident that effective oral communication is seen as a ‘life-long’
skill that benefits students both personally and professionally in a diverse range of
contexts. The concern with providing a general definition of oral communication is that it
can lead to an oversimplification of the specific nature and requirements of each speaking
opportunity. For example, can simply subscribing to a view that all oral communication
must be ‘effective’ assist in developing students who are able to make a positive
impression at an up-coming job interview, as well as deliver an ‘effective’ 10-minute
speech? The challenge for educators is how to develop oral communication skills that
meet the needs of so many speaking exchanges. The literature makes mention of
providing for both formal and informal opportunities. Manuel (2004) supports this notion
with the idea that while there will always be a need for “prepared oral speech” (p. 76) in
the classroom it should not come at the expense of providing opportunities for
“spontaneous talking” (p. 76) as well. This suggests some kind of speaking spectrum with
‘prepared’ and ‘spontaneous’ placed at either end; however, as this section has
highlighted, and the next one further explores, there is a definite blurring when it comes to
overall expectations of specific speaking events.
This study is concerned with more formal speaking opportunities, that of giving a
prepared oral presentation. For this, I draw on Levin and Topping’s (2006) broad
definition of prepared oral presentations: “a talk or speech given by a presenter
(sometimes more than one) to an audience of two or more people” (p. 4). I have extended
their definition to include a planned talk ranging in time from three to 15 minutes because
this reflects what students are generally required to do at secondary school and
university.
3.2 Positioning oral presentations
Effective communication skills are seen to significantly contribute to learning success at
both the classroom level and beyond. To this, Abbott and Godhini (2001) state that
“[e]ducators have a responsibility to ensure that students have many opportunities to
develop and refine their oral communication so that they will lead more fulfilling and
32
meaningful lives” (p.vi). It is suggested that recognition of such long-term benefits has led
to an increased focus on speaking and listening in English classrooms (Tasmanian
Education Department, 2010, para. 1). While the importance of developing oral
communication skills is easily located in the literature what is more problematic is
uncovering the relationship between ‘oral communication’ and ‘oral presentation’. In
particular, this begs the question as to whether the two terms are interchangeable, or is
one dependent on the other? For Merritt (2003) the terms can be conceived as being
inseparable:
The mere use of the term, ‘oral communication’, will remind some readers of
insufferably long afternoons in a primary or high school classroom, dreading the
moment when you would be called to the front of the room to deliver a talk. (p. 3)
Meantime, Manuel (2004) clearly considers these two terms as discrete concepts. In fact,
she cautions against using formal presentations as a gauge of “oral language
competence” (p. 75). She suggests that such presentations “[focus] on the teaching of
measurable skills” (p. 75). In promoting the need to develop what she believes are more
useful, everyday oral communication skills, Manuel (2004) presents a number of potential
speaking situations that students are more likely to face ahead of ‘speaking publicly’:
Consider how many of our students actually go on to speak publicly on any more
than a handful of occasions in a lifetime. Yet, every day they will almost certainly be
required to use spoken language, for instance, negotiate with colleagues; interact
with peers; nurture youngsters; empathise with family, friends, strangers; decipher,
decode and interpret complex audiovisual messages; speculate about the future and
reminisce about the past; greet and converse with familiar people and a host of
others; grapple with an array of challenges in their public and private worlds. (pp. 75-
76)
Manuel’s (2004) examples of everyday speaking opportunities are interactive and include
reference to a reason for the exchange as well as an intended audience. However, the
first line of her quote is less clear. It provides a restricted view of the idea of speaking
publicly. In particular, it negates any flow-on effect between informal and formal
situations. But not all writers are as quick to dismiss the connection.
33
Quin and Cody (1998) see a “valuable spinoff” (p.54) with regard to overall skills and
confidence when stating why experience in more formal speaking opportunities benefits
less formal ones. Levin and Topping (2006) also refer to generic skills and confidence
that cross over from prepared presentations to other less planned speaking tasks. These
views fit comfortably with general advice that encourages speakers to be ‘clear, concise,
conversational, and confident’ in both informal and formal speaking situations. Taking a
different, albeit still cautious, approach to the benefits of prepared oral presentations is
Sally Brown. In looking at the role of oral assessments at the university level, Brown
(1999) states that this type of task: “introduces the element of performance into practice
assessment” (p. 101). In detailing how this relates to a student’s particular area of study,
or even possible career path, Brown (1999) states, “we would expect, for example, that
lawyers and actors should be able to demonstrate high levels of oral competence, but this
is likely to be less important for some other professions” (p. 101). However, this point is
followed with, “although all professions need to be able to communicate orally and in
writing at well above a basic level” (p. 101). Both of these statements add to the
confusion over how to define ‘oral communication’ and ‘oral presentation’. In the first
quote, oral competence appears to be relegated to the ability to perform a play script or
present a closing argument in a court case – requiring the actor and lawyer to present
orally. Meantime, Brown’s (1999) suggestion that all professions require a certain level of
oral competency needs further investigation, in particular, what is meant by “above a
basic level” in terms of communicating orally?
The long-term benefits of being able to present a prepared talk or speech receives mixed
reviews in the literature. One reason for this is a level of ambiguity in describing terms
such as ‘oral communication’ and ‘oral presentation’. While assessment is discussed in
an up-coming chapter, it is important to note at this stage that matters of evaluation play a
key role when considering definitions of terms. That is, within an educational
environment, developing oral communication skills goes hand in hand with assessing oral
communication skills. And this is where educators face difficulty. For example, the
potential speaking situations listed by Manuel (2004) – negotiating, nurturing empathising,
speculating, reminiscing – are not usually the oral skills associated with more formal
speaking opportunities, such as the prepared oral presentation. One example of
encouraging more informal communication exchanges is through class discussions.
Hertenstein, Dallimore, and Platt (2008) highlight the positive role of such discussions in
developing “critical thinking and problem-solving skills” (p. 163) as well as enhancing
34
overall oral communication skills. However, they also acknowledge the difficulty in
encouraging all students to participate in such discussions. They refer to strategies such
as grading student participation and “cold calling” (p. 163) where the teacher elects,
rather than invites, students to contribute a comment. Even so, they concede that both
strategies come with some limitations, particularly in the area of assessment.
In a 2005 study of Western Australian schools, Oliver, Haig, and Rochecouste concluded
that promoting good oral skills and providing experiences that meet assessment
requirements are not always aligned. They attributed this to a curriculum that favours
written tasks as well as an overall lack of confidence on behalf of educators in evaluating
oral skills outside of prepared presentations (2005, p. 212). Along with Manuel (2004),
Hertenstein et al (2008) and Oliver et al (2005) recognise the role of more formal
speaking presentations, but question the often sole reliance of such classroom tasks in
the assessment, or development, of oral language skills. Oliver et al’s (2005) chief
criticism is levelled at the use of “performance language” in such presentations which
they state “is tantamount to producing written language in an oral form, rather than
generating good communication skills” (p. 212).
Oliver et al (2005) interviewed staff from 13 Western Australian secondary schools and
found mixed responses to the inclusion of oral presentations for assessment. On the one
hand, such speaking tasks were seen to be “easier to orchestrate in the classroom and
expedient for assessment purposes” while on the other they confined assessment of oral
competence to mainly “paralinguistic” considerations “rather than focusing on rhetorical or
academic aspects of the presentation” (p. 215). They also concluded that when students
are engaged in class discussions, it is often connected to past or future writing tasks.
That is, talking is based on something that has been read or will be written which favours
a more traditional view of literacy. Far from criticising the role of prepared oral
presentations for assessment, the observations of Manuel (2004), Hertenstein et al
(2008) and Oliver et al (2005) recommend that such presentations are one way of
addressing the oral communication needs of students, but not the only way. Such
considerations make it difficult to simply substitute oral communication with oral
presentation or vice versa. Instead, it points to specific skills needed for specific tasks,
rather than an all-encompassing view. This echoes the concerns of Gray et al (2007) that
definitions of ‘effective communication skills’ are often very broad and require more
targeted thought.
35
This directly links to this study in that educators use prepared oral presentations in the
classroom as one way of developing and assessing student oral communication skills. As
previously mentioned, two reasons for this are future work related tasks and enhancing
personal communication skills. Other reasons include a desire to cater for different
student strengths (personal communication, May, 2009); curriculum considerations
concerning multimodal11 forms of assessment (personal communication, June, 2009) and
a perception that this type of assessment is a fair and manageable way of catering for
large cohorts of students (Hertenstein et al, 2008). While such reasons obviously impact
on why a specific type of assessment is utilised, it is not the main purpose of this study to
question the inclusion of prepared oral presentations in the curriculum, but rather to
explore what students are being asked to do each time they deliver a prepared oral
presentation and for what benefit? This involves looking at what type of instruction
students receive in terms of both preparing and presenting.
3.3 Instruction practices
While some may question the role of more formal presentations as a way of assessing a
student’s oral ability, it is fair to assume that on any one teaching day, in any school or
university around Australia, some students will be delivering a prepared oral presentation
in front of tutors, teachers, and classmates. There are many written and online resources
available to help students present such oral tasks. The irony is that for the multitude of
resources on offer, the suggestions are relatively basic as can be found on the ubiquitous
list of dot points on many university websites dealing with how to give an oral
presentation. Take for example Levin and Topping’s (2006) general assumption that at
the core of any speaking situation is the need to “say what you want, clearly and
persuasively” (p. 1). Simple adages such as this are scattered throughout the literature.
Dale Carnegie’s maxim “tell them what you’re going to tell them; tell them; then tell them
what you’ve told them” is often quoted in books and articles dealing with speaking in front
of others (as cited in Sellnow, 2005, p. 185; Levin & Topping, 2006, p. 59; McKenna,
Thomas & Waddell, 2004, p. 341). Carnegie’s 17-word speaking motto follows (in both
style and message) a simple structure, uses uncomplicated language, and employs the
rhetorical device of repetition. It is this straightforward approach that enables Quin and
11 As outlined by the Victorian Essential Learning Standards (2009), “multimodal texts are those that combine, for example, print text and spoken word as in film or computer presentation media.”
36
Cody (1998) to make the leap from more formal student oral presentations to improving
“skills and confidence in less formal situations as well” (p. 54). That is, keep it simple,
keep it conversational, and any message will be clear. But is what we are asking students
to do quite as simple?
It is not uncommon to find sample speeches located in educational support books or on
educational websites. The idea is to provide students with a model of how a speech could
be constructed. However, even when prefaced by the word ‘sample’ it is fair to assume
that the suggested model is being presented as an effective way to approach the task. In
one Australian English support book for senior secondary students, an analysis of the first
fifteen lines of a sample speech reveals an average sentence length of over thirty words.
The longest sentence is forty-six words.12 This is in contrast to recommendations cited in
public speaking and presentation manuals that suggest: using much shorter sentences
(Levin and Topping, 2006, p. 87); conversational language (Ryan and Pauley, 2000, p. 5);
and writing for the ear rather than the eye (McKenna, Thomas and Waddell, 2004, p.
319). The information contained in this sample speech does not follow Carnegie’s maxim,
or the above advice, but rather provides an in-depth commentary on a complicated topic
that is more suitable for a written assignment than an oral presentation.
How would such a speech, with such long complicated language elements, be delivered?
The three recognised modes of delivery for prepared speeches are memorised,
manuscript, and extemporaneous (Sprague and Stuart, 2005; Morreale and Bovee 1998;
Sellnow, 2005). The first two approaches refer to writing out a speech in full and either
committing it to memory or actually using the script during delivery. While accepting that
some situations require such a controlled message, both approaches are generally not
recommended. Thompson (1998) provides the following summary that highlights some of
the difficulties: “Memorising gets too much in the way of spontaneity, but then few
speakers can handle a written text” (p. 127-128). General public speaking and
presentation manuals support the third option, the extemporaneous method, as best
practice. With this method, the oral presentation is planned and rehearsed, but not
committed to memory or read directly from a script. As Bradley (1991) states “you’ll make
12 An extract from this speech, along with other examples of speeches can be found in Appendix B. Each example speech includes a sentence word count as well as identifying number of syllables.
37
the exact choice of words and construction of sentences largely during the act of
communicating directly with your listeners” (p.117).
Why is this most favoured mode? The literature I canvassed repeatedly referred to three
words in support of the extemporaneous approach: spontaneous, natural, and
conversational (Sprague and Stuart, 2005; Morreale and Bovee 1998; Sellnow, 2005). All
three are seen as positive attributes in helping to develop and maintain a ‘connection’
with the audience. In addition to this, a number of writers refer to the extemporaneous
mode as the most common approach to speaking (Sprague and Stuart, 2005, p. 335;
Morreale and Bovee, 1998; Lahiff and Penrose, 1997). However, Verderber and
Verderber (2006) go one step further in stating that it is in fact the “easiest to give
effectively” (p. 201).
While McCarthy and Hatcher (2002) also advocate the extemporaneous approach,
favouring a speaking outline over a written script, their focus is on the need for thorough
planning. They state that less detailed notes are only possible once the speaker has
“become practiced at outlining prompts or points” (p. 63). This means much more than
simply reducing the number of words on a page. This relates to the overall purpose of the
presentation and, in particular, what can be achieved in the context and time available. As
the favoured approach to speaking, it is worth remembering that the extemporaneous
mode does not discount the use of notes, in fact, this style actually encourages the use of
them. However, rather than being reliant on a written script, the use of notes is advocated
as a way of simply glancing at a key word or phrase so as to be able to continue on with
the well planned messages. (Appendix A provides a more detailed explanation of why
notes are encouraged and the suggested type of notes.)
From the literature, it can be concluded that many speakers require the use of some type
of speaking prompt. The general recommendation is that for shorter presentations (under
15 minutes) it is advised to use notes rather than a full script. Notes support the
extemporaneous mode of speaking by allowing the speaker to be prepared yet still
appear spontaneous. This ability to speak planned thoughts, rather than actual words, is
seen as a desired speaking trait and one that should be encouraged at both the student
and professional level. However, the actual size and placement of notes is open to
interpretation. And just as the word ‘effective’ can be ambiguous, so too can words such
as ‘necessary’ as when Hasling (1998) writes in relation to using notes:
38
Include only necessary words and phrases. If you write the whole speech on the note
cards, you will be tempted to read rather than extemporize. Don’t make your notes so
detailed that the speech becomes one that is read from a manuscript. (p.169)
While the ability to use notes rather than a full script is promoted in the literature, and on
numerous university sites dealing with prepared oral presentations, what is less easily
found is how students move from a full script (often referred to as a preparation outline
where full sentences are encouraged) to a speaking outline (usually in note format). A
standard approach advocates the use of a clear structure, and a limited number of points.
To develop such points, speakers are encouraged to start with the main idea and then
provide explanations and examples to expand and back up each point. For example,
Lucas (1998, p. 260) is one of a number of writers who suggests using different numerals
or lettering as a way of developing a point on the diagonal as with his following example
from a speech on the topic of sleep deprivation:
I. Most Americans do not get the sleep they need on a regular basis.
A. The typical adult needs about eight hours of sleep each night to function effectively
during the day.
B. Yet most Americans consistently get less than eight hours sleep a night.
1. A Stanford study showed that over half the population get less than seven
hours sleep a night.
2. The same study showed that 20 percent of the population gets less than six
hours sleep a night.
This process is said to assist both speaker and audience to stay on track as each sub
point specifically relates to the previous one, hence the idea of developing a point on the
diagonal. Other ways of making a message easier to follow and remember are using
linking and transitional phrases/sentences, signposts, and internal previews and
summaries. These structural and language devices (such as the linking words ‘yet’ and
‘the same study’ in the above example) are also seen as necessary when preparation
outlines are reduced to a speaking outline, in other words, from full sentences to notes or
headings. Again, this method supports the extemporaneous mode of delivery with its
emphasis on thorough planning while still being, or at least sounding, conversational. The
39
preparation and use of notes or full script is central to this study in relation to the oral
aspect of any presentation. So, too, is the use of language and whether or not it supports
an oral or written style.
There is indeed an oral component with both a prepared reading and a recitation but both
involve a very different skill set – similar to what is required from professional actors or
news readers. This raises a pertinent point. What is the relationship between oral
presentation and oral performance? Do educators connect ‘oral language’, ‘performance
language’ and ‘prepared oral presentations’ as suggested in Oliver et al’s (2005) study.
And if yes, does focussing on desired speech qualities at the time of presentation have
anything to offer the longer term development of effective oral communication skills?
Educators such as Flaxman (2008) are overt in encouraging students to see a link
between presentations and performance; “we told our students that a presentation is a
performance. And since no experienced performer performs unrehearsed, their first rule
should be to practice, practice, practice, preferably aloud to a sympathetic audience” (p.
2). The question here is what exactly is being practised? As a way of “strengthening oral
speaking skills” Flaxman (2008) provides the following advice, “we suggested that an
effective and engaging oral presentation should be simple and snappy; to the point; well
and clearly organized; colourful, with relevant supporting materials; conversational and
natural in delivery; and relevant to one’s listeners” (p. 22). And how is a conversational
manner made possible? Flaxman (2008) goes on to state, “because they [students]
speak from notes or an outline, not a text … so that they can actively think about what
they are saying” (p. 2). There are mixed messages in this advice. On the one hand
presentations are seen to be performances and performances require considerable
practice; however, on the other hand, a ‘natural delivery’ style will only be achieved if the
speaker uses notes or an outline.
A more contemporary understanding of rhetoric provides a base for such pedagogical
issues as it encompasses both oral and written communication. However, an
understanding of the rhetorical perspective does not suggest that both written and oral
communication should be approached in the same manner; although some educators are
keen to make such a connection. For example, Clark (2002) suggests the value of
revising written material in the preparation stage of an oral presentation. Her study
revealed that of ten instructional approaches to the teaching of speaking in front of others,
students favoured getting individual feedback on a detailed, ”preliminary [written] outline”
40
(p. 8). (Other instructional approaches included giving impromptu speeches in class time;
viewing model speeches; and having access to detailed written resources on how best to
present).
All of Clark’s abovementioned ‘instructional approaches’ relate to what can be offered to
students in preparing for an oral presentation. However, instruction is only part of the
educational equation. The role of assessment is a major consideration. As outlined in this
chapter, the language of instruction is often presented in quite basic terms, for example
“say what you want, clearly and persuasively” (Levin and Topping, 2006, p.1). The
language of assessment is now reviewed to see how such simple instructional practices
are supported at the time of evaluation.
41
4
MATTERS OF ASSESSMENT
4.1 Assessing oral presentations
Chohan and Smith (2007) define oral assessment as “the process of assessing a
person’s oral presentation style and their ability to support their arguments/opinions
effectively through the use of spoken communication” (p. 1). Following a similar line,
Joughin (2003) suggests that this type of assessment can evaluate two separate
qualities:
The command of the oral medium itself, that is, the student’s oral skills of
communication in general or language skills in particular; and the command of
content as demonstrated through the oral medium. (p. 2)
Both sets of writers identify the need for a speaker to have a message (content) as well
as the oral skills to actually deliver it. At first glance, it may appear that Joughin’s (2003)
definition highlights the capacity to separate what is said from how it is said. However, the
phrase “demonstrated through the oral medium” (p. 2) suggests a definite link between
content and delivery. In fact, the verb ‘demonstrated’ provides a way that the content is
recognised, in this instance through spoken words. In short, Chohan and Smith (2007)
and Joughin (2003) do not simply divide oral assessment into content and delivery, but
rather propose that part of the assessment process involves evaluating a student’s ability
to orally make a message. The ‘content’ or ‘argument’ of a student’s presentation is
‘supported’ or ‘demonstrated’ through ‘spoken communication’ (‘oral medium’).
Regarding reasons for including oral assessment in a curriculum, Joughin and Collom
(2003) suggest “authenticity, promoting good learning, balancing and developing student
strengths and countering plagiarism” (p. 2). The second and fourth reasons – promoting
good learning and countering plagiarism – are specifically tied with the ability of students
to answer questions about what they have researched and learnt (rather than the actual
delivery of a prepared presentation). In some instances, this question and answer
technique constitutes the whole exam as with a Viva Voce or a significant part of the
Matura, which is a final assessment piece for high school students in many European
countries. It is suggested that such an approach encourages students to have a thorough
42
understanding of the content in order to be able to answer a variety of questions. It would
appear that this type of interaction would, by necessity, promote a more natural,
spontaneous and conversational delivery style. However, concerns include how to
regulate the type and style of questions between examiners and candidates, in particular
should the questions be pre-set or simply arise from the answers. This raises issues of
reliability and validity in marking multiple examinations. In contrast to basing the whole
oral assessment piece around the ability to respond to questions, an alternative approach
is to ask questions at the end of a prepared presentation. However, while the benefits
may again point to promoting good learning and even countering plagiarism (for the
student must voice his or her own answer to what is usually an unprepared question);
within the high school and university context this Q and A session can be compromised
due to time restrictions and numbers of students expected to present at any one time.
Of particular relevance to this study, is the first of Joughin and Collom’s (2003) reasons –
authenticity. This is linked to what secondary schools students are required to do under
the banner of authentic, alternative, or performance, assessment. Again, the literature
surrounding this type of assessment is immense, as too are the number of definitions that
either view the terms ‘authentic’, ‘alternative’ and ‘performance assessment’ as
complementary or distinctive. While recognising these discrepancies in the literature,
Burke (1999) advises that despite how each term is defined, this overall way of assessing
is different from traditional pen and paper tests and also has a direct link to activities
beyond the classroom experience. Advocates of this type of assessment point to the
importance of creating knowledge and ideas rather than simply replicating information. A
distinction is made between ‘deep’ rather than ‘surface’ learning with students
encouraged to make connections with past assessment pieces and be given the
opportunity to “explore the subject beyond the immediate requirements” (University of
Technology, Sydney, 2007).
This deeper approach calls for carefully considered guidelines in relation to informing
students about overall expectations as well as providing meaningful feedback. This often
necessitates an extended time frame to be able to produce work of such quality. Most
importantly, this type of assessment is seen to develop ways of learning that are
transferable. As Joughin and Collom (2003) conclude, such authentic tasks are more akin
to what students will be asked to do in future work situations. With a rationale of creating
rather than replicating knowledge, authentic assessment is credited with providing more
43
challenging assessment pieces with longer term benefits, states Newmann (as cited in
Burke (1999) p. xxi). It also highlights a link between knowing and doing with students
engaged in genuine tasks to complete. As is explored in the following section to do with
criterion-referenced assessment, different assessment tasks focus on different
competencies however in relation to general oral communication skills, Airasian in 2005
(as cited in McMillan, 2007, p.235) provides the following categories:
Physical expression Eye contact, posture, facial expression, gestures and body
movement
Vocal expression Articulation, clarity, vocal variation, loudness, pace and rate
Verbal expression Repetition, organisation, summarizations, reasoning,
completeness of ideas and thoughts, selection of appropriate
words to convey precise meanings
Factors listed under physical and vocal expression are easily found in resource materials
dealing with speaking effectively. They are also the areas often mentioned by students as
indicators of what teachers are looking for when assessing an oral presentation. Likewise,
within verbal expression, organisation is often mentioned in relation to how a talk is
structured or patterned. However, some of the other factors included in this third category
are less discussed, for example: reasoning, completeness of ideas and thoughts, and
selection of appropriate words to convey precise meaning. These three ideas take on a
rhetorical appeal when the role of an audience is included so that strength of reasoning,
unity of thought and actual selection of words are considered in light of who will be
listening and why.
Is it fair to assume that traits listed within physical and vocal expression are evident at the
time of delivery; whereas strength of reasoning is more indicative of prior research and
planning? The ability to segregate such positive speaking qualities in such a manner
again points to a divide between content and delivery, one that can in fact be assessed.
Dance (2002) explores this idea further suggesting that instead of limiting discussion to
content and delivery it is more important to concentrate on a speaker’s thoughts and how
these thoughts are expressed. Dance (2002) criticised many North American university
public speaking courses as focusing on only public speaking skills (p. 355). He questions
teaching such skills when the main indicator of success is how well the student ‘performs’
44
during the final presentation. Dance (2002) favours an approach where a student’s ability
to apply critical thinking is evidenced through overall development in public speaking
skills. His comments are particularly directed towards assessment considerations. “It is
easier to critique eye contact than to isolate and critique logical strength. It is easier to
reduce vocalized pauses than to maximize a regard for evidence appropriate to the
subject and audience” (Dance, 2002, p. 357). He focuses on the importance of reasoning
and how at the end of a presentation an audience “must have been able to follow and to
understand the speaker’s reasoning” (p. 356).
While specifically dealing with North American universities, Dance’s comments have
something to offer this study by raising the following questions. In relation to secondary
school and university student presentations, how much importance is placed on
assessing what can be described as ‘platform’ speaking skills as evidenced at the time of
delivery? In addition, if, as Dance (2002) suggests, the goal is for overall improvement in
the ability to express one’s thoughts orally, then what mechanisms are in place to
facilitate this development? In other words, is it enough to simply provide opportunities to
present? And how does the feedback that a student receives encourage or change the
way they approach the task in the future? Dance (2002) raises important macro level
concerns for this study; in particular, the pedagogical issues related to instruction and
assessment. For example, how and when are considerations of overall reasoning
assessed? Is it at the time of delivery or before or after a speech has been delivered
when a written draft has been handed in?
In focussing more on actual assessment practices, Joughin (2003) identifies six
dimensions of oral assessment that assist in “describing” (p. iv) and “analysing” (p. iv)
what students are being asked to do with this type of assessment. It is the sixth
dimension – orality – that is of particular interest for this study. Joughin (2003) refers to
this as the “extent to which the assessment is conducted orally”, and in terms of this
identifies a “range of practices” that can be placed along a continuum (p.26). At one end
is the “purely oral”, where “the oral medium is deliberately substituted for the written”,
while at the other end is “orality as secondary”, where the “oral component of assessment
may be secondary to another component” (p. 26). To the first, Joughin (2003) assigns
such assessment items as the previously mentioned Viva Voce, which is usually
conducted through a question/answer format or discussion. With “orality as secondary”,
45
he identifies such tasks as the “oral presentation of a written paper” or the “oral
explanation of a physical work” (p. 26).
The common element, regardless of where a presentation fits along the continuum, is that
the assessment has an oral component. What constitutes an oral response is a key
concern for this study. And further, orality is looked at in terms of use of, relationship to,
and overall reliance on, a written script. In exploring a range of practices in this area,
commitment to a script is considered regardless of whether an actual copy is taken out at
the time of delivery, i.e. has a completed script been memorised or reduced to dot points
but still presented/recited in full. This is investigated to consider what is actually meant by
the word ‘oral’ in oral presentation and if it can be substituted for reading or reciting a
written script, how should such presentations be marked? One way of addressing this
question is to consider the role of the marking rubric, or criterion-referenced assessment
matrices, used in evaluating prepared oral presentations.
4.2 Criterion-referenced assessment and rubrics
The importance that students place on assessment as it relates to overall curriculum has
been well documented (Cooper, 2005). Students want to know what is being assessed.
The introduction of criterion-referenced assessment in both secondary schools and
universities is seen to provide a comprehensive form of evaluation through the marking
rubric. It is also seen as making visible the assessment criteria as a relevant way of
evaluating performance or authentic assessment. An actual ‘demonstration’ of knowledge
and/or skills requires a way of assessing that goes beyond letter grades or percentages
(that have been the norm with more traditional assessment instruments such as multiple
choice exams). Also, if a perceived strength of ‘authentic’ assessment is its close
relationship with ‘real world’ experiences, then opportunities for students to learn from
each piece of assessment demands more than a single letter or number grade.
Usually set out in a simple grid format, a rubric consists of a number of criteria that can be
used to “discriminate . . . degrees of quality, understanding or proficiency” (Carey, 2001,
p. 6). A rubric is made up of three necessary parts: “evaluative criteria, quality definitions,
and a scoring strategy” (Popham, 1997, p. 72). Levels of achievement are indicated on a
sliding scale from ‘excellent’ to ‘poor’ or with similar terms. The number and scope of
criteria reflect assessment requirements for that task. This approach allows both students
and markers to understand not only what is required with an assessment item, but how
46
marks will be assigned. It is advocated because it “clarifies and demystifies” (Newcastle
University, 2008) how tasks are evaluated. In addition, rubrics are seen as a way of
assisting educators in providing a more consistent evaluative voice. Inter-rater reliability is
promoted through clear and defined marking criteria. Therefore, rubrics are seen to
provide a consistent approach to marking while still encouraging opportunities to learn. In
addition, they make it possible to provide “valid judgements of complex competencies”
(Jonsson and Svingby, 2007 p. 130).
The idea that rubrics are useful for making judgements of complex competencies is in
keeping with the realm of ‘authentic assessment’ where issues of ‘quality’ are at stake. In
designing rubrics, educators are advised to be mindful of deciding on criteria that are
“clearly aligned with the requirements of the task” and “expressed in terms of observable
behaviours or product characteristics” (Moskal, 2003, p. 5). In addition the language and
design of such rubrics should be clear and “free from bias” (Moskal, 2003, p. 6).
Therefore, for teachers faced with numerous classes and an overabundance of marking,
they are billed as being simple, fast, and effective. Another perceived benefit relates to
transparency because everyone – staff, students and parents – knows what is expected.
For the student, this ‘knowing’ equates to being able to recognise the elements of ‘quality’
work (Burke, 2009, p. 86). This recognition of quality is seen as an important step towards
being able to address the key criteria that make up the expectations for the particular
piece of assessment. While the word ‘quality’ is often included in the discussion about
rubrics, their very design also raises issues of quantity. Indeed, is it possible to quantify
quality? In trying to measure or quantify levels of achievement, definitions of quality
usually involve “slightly less positive terms” being used from one grade to the next
(Popham, 1997, p. 73). For example the following definitions of quality are used to assess
body language on one Queensland primary school rubric13:
13 This has been generated by an online rubric maker called Rubistar, which is referred to on the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development website. A full list of criteria, created by Rubistar, for the purposes of assessing oral presentations is included in Appendix C.
47
4 3 2 1
Student is completely prepared and has obviously rehearsed.
Student seems pretty prepared but might have needed a couple more rehearsals.
The student is somewhat prepared, but it is clear that rehearsal was lacking.
Student does not seem at all prepared to present.
While for a university group presentation, these comments appear within the criterion for
oral communication processes:
High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass/Low Pass
Exceptionally clear and concise expression
Excellent expression
Good expression Sound/limited expression
While rubrics have been hailed as a quick, efficient, and reliable way of assessing student
performance, they have not been without their critics. For academic, Alfie Kohn (2006) a
chief concern with rubrics is how criteria are selected and worded. He states that when
inter-rater reliability is a consideration, the criteria chosen are selected for ease of
agreement.
In addition, critics of rubrics often cite the sliding scale of quality and the language used to
describe the slide as a particular defect of this type of marking technology. In particular
Popham (1997) questions the instructional value of some rubrics. Popham (1997)
explores a number of “flaws” associated with rubrics including the use of “excessively
general evaluative criteria” (p. 73). In other words, how can students use such ‘advice’ to
assist in both the preparation and evaluation of such assessment pieces?
Similar criticisms were levelled at the peak American communication body, The National
Communication Association (then called the Speech Communication Association) in the
early 1990s. The development of eight key speaking competencies at a conference in
1990, saw the association devise the ‘competent speaker evaluation form’. These
competencies were seen to provide a “standard” or “criteria” (Morreale, 1990, p. 3) for
assessment purposes. Six of the eight competencies include the word ‘appropriate’ in
describing a desired level of proficiency, as with “provides appropriate supporting material
based on the audience and occasion” (Morreale, 1990, p. 10). Hugenberg and Yoda
48
(1994) question the language used to describe levels of proficiency on this form. They
single out words such as “appropriate” along with “above average”, “high”, “very high”,
and “exceptional” in relation to “levels of competence” (p. 10). Their concern centres on
how such terms can be “clearly defined or adequately defended” (p.10). More than ten
years later, QUT law academic, Donna Cooper was also grappling with subjective
language on forms used to mark oral presentations. She said the law faculty had
“redrafted” criteria sheets to “delete” words such as “highly appropriate or “highly
relevant” because of the difficulty in determining meaning (2005, p.127). Kohn (2006) is
particularly scathing of such adjectives and adverbs describing them as “murky” and open
to interpretation (p. 2).
While subjective language is listed as one concern, “poorly designed” rubrics are also
mentioned under possible limitations with this type of scoring technology according to
Wolf and Stevens (2007, p. 13). They suggest that a rubric can become a “straitjacket” (p.
13) for students, if it is perceived that there is only one right way to address the
assessment task. Kohn (2006) extends this thought by questioning the relevance of
“consistent and uniform standards” (p. 1) that are the hallmark of rubrics. He says that
while this might be “admirable” when referring to “DVD players” it is another matter when
trying to “gauge children’s understanding of ideas” (p. 1). In fact, for Kohn (2006),
subjectivity is part of “human judgement” (p. 1) and trying to contain this can have dire
consequences. He is therefore critical of any marking instrument that has ‘objectivity’ as
its goal. “Rubrics are, above all, a tool to promote standardization, to turn teachers into
grading machines or at least allow them to pretend that what they’re doing is exact and
objective” (Kohn, 2006 p.1). While acknowledging this is a problem, Wolf and Stevens
(2007) still suggest that not supplying a rubric can result in “an evaluation process that is
based on individual whimsy or worse – unrecognized prejudices” (p. 13).
Matters of assessment will always create debate within education circles. The rubric is
one assessment tool. The overall layout of the rubric is a good illustration of the diverse
opinions available on its usefulness ranging from the highly positive to the highly
negative. However, the value of actually using rubrics is not in question here. At this point
in time, rubrics are a key part of assessment practices in both secondary schools and the
academy for better or for worse. In the first semester of teaching at QUT in 2010, I
assessed over 100 student oral presentations in four different subjects spanning three
different faculties: Information Technology, Creative Industries, and Business. Each
49
presentation was marked with the assistance of a rubric. In addition, all 12 students
interviewed in this study had recently had an oral presentation marked using a criterion-
referenced assessment sheet (rubric). Therefore, instead of questioning the inclusion of
rubrics as a marking tool, an attempt is made to evaluate the effectiveness of these
instruments for both instruction and feedback and, most importantly, how they contribute
to a student’s overall choices in planning, preparing, and delivering their oral
presentations.
This again points to the actual criteria used on each rubric and how they match the
overall learning objectives. Moskal (2003) stresses the importance of this as well as
adding a further recommendation for those creating and using rubrics – to be careful of
not “exam(ing) extraneous or unintended variables” (p. 4). In relation to a prepared oral
presentation for assessment, these ideas can be considered in two ways. First, does the
written marking rubric provide the necessary guidelines on how to prepare for both oral
content and oral delivery? Second, could the inclusion of some presentation criteria
actually reinforce behaviour that is not conducive to effective speaking?
This literature review has highlighted the complexity of ideas surrounding prepared oral
presentations for assessment in terms of expectations and practice. Any study hoping to
explore these ideas further must rely on a methodology that is able to cater for such
complexity. The following chapter details how I have approached this study in terms of an
achievable framework.
50
5
METHODOLOGY
5.1 Positioning the study
Oral presentations for assessment are not only used as in-class assessment items but
are also perceived as adding to the development of necessary life-long communication
skills. My literature review intentionally covered an eclectic range of documents, both
original and secondary interpretations, in an attempt to uncover why this particular
communication act is viewed in such a manner. To do this, it was necessary to begin with
a general understanding of oral communication before narrowing the focus to look
specifically at oral presentations for assessment, including expectations surrounding
instruction and feedback. While this sets up a necessary backdrop for this study, the main
aim is to connect such ‘perceptions’ with what students are being asked to do for
assessment. Therefore, in line with my first three research questions, the emphasis of this
study is on the student’s perspective in addressing whether or not expectations about oral
presentations for assessment are in fact meeting practice. Accordingly, my methodology
must support such an overall aim.
As indicated in earlier chapters, any research under the banner of communication has the
potential to spin out of control. Even when identifying one aspect, such as ‘oral
presentation’, the enormity of available material could easily cause the researcher to go
off on multiple tangents, hence, Silverman’s (1997) warning of undertaking research that
says “a little about a lot” rather than “a lot about a little” (p.3). However, not recognising
the breadth of possible contributions, particularly historical contributions, to this issue is
equally as limiting. That is why I have chosen to work within a qualitative paradigm, for
this approach provides an opportunity to look at a variety of ideas and to actively reflect
on the impact of such ideas. It also situates this research as part of an ongoing
discussion rather than providing a definite outcome. This chapter will include
consideration of my methodological stance to support the methods used in this research.
5.2 Qualitative Paradigm
This study seeks to uncover, and add to the understanding of, how students view their
involvement in prepared oral presentations for assessment in the classroom for, as
Joughin (2003) states, the student’s perspective has not been extensively studied in this
51
area (p. iv). To do this, it is essential that the student’s voice is not only heard but also
examined in light of general educational practices in relation to this type of assessment.
This involves being open to different interpretations of how oral presentations for
assessment are experienced and therefore fits within the terrain of qualitative research.
While acknowledging the difficulty of providing a single and simple definition of qualitative
research, Denzin and Lincoln (2005) provide the following which is in keeping with how I
see my role as researcher:
Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate
relationship between the researcher and what is studied, and the situational
constraints that shape inquiry. Such researchers emphasise the value-laden nature
of inquiry. They seek answers to questions that stress how social experience is
created and given meaning. (p.10)
To sum up, a qualitative approach reflects a view of the world that is “socially constructed,
complex and ever changing” (Glesne, 2011, p.8). This underlying assumption, that reality
is socially constructed rather than an objective fact, is often referred to as the major
distinction between this type of research and a more quantitative or positivist tradition. In
fact, Cresswell (1994) suggests that the qualitative paradigm “began as a
countermovement to the positivist tradition in the late 19th century” (p. 4). He provides a
succinct table to illustrate the major underlining assumptions of both quantitative and
qualitative research where he addresses five pertinent assumptions including ontological,
epistemological, and methodological considerations.
Table 5.1: Extract from Creswell’s (1994) table com paring quantitative and qualitative research
Assumption Question Quantitative Qualitative
Ontological Assumption
What is the nature of reality?
Reality is objective and singular, apart from the researcher.
Reality is subjective and multiple as seen by participants in a study.
Epistemological Assumption
What is the relationship of the researcher to that researched?
Researcher is independent from that being researched.
Researcher interacts with that being researched.
Methodological Assumption
What is the process of research?
Deductive process. Cause and effect. Static
Inductive process. Mutual simultaneous
52
design – categories isolated before study. Context-free. Generalisations leading to prediction, explanation, and understanding. Accurate and reliable through validity and reliability.
shaping of factors. Emerging design – categories identified during research process. Context-bound. Patterns, theories developed for understanding. Accurate and reliable through verification.
While this table identifies the different approaches to the stated questions, it does not
mean that within each paradigm there is a universal approach to research. For example,
Denzin and Lincoln (2005) point to eight historical moments in North America that have
helped to characterize the qualitative approach (p. 2-3).They identify them as:
[t]he traditional (1900-1950); the modernist, or golden age (1950-1970); blurred
genres (1970-1986); the crisis of representation (1986-1990); the postmodern, a
period of experimental and new ethnographies (1990-1995); post-experimental
inquiry (1995-2000); the methodologically contested present (2000-2004); and the
fractured future, which is now (2005-). (p. 3)
This has led Denzin and Lincoln (2011) to assert that qualitative research has “no single
methodological practice” or “no set of methods or practices that are entirely its own” (p.
6). While this may seem to provide an open-ended approach to such research, is also
enables individual researchers to design a line of inquiry that specifically addresses the
needs of a particular phenomenon and associated research questions.
Apart from many researchers who have embraced the qualitative approach, it has also
had its detractors. The ‘fact’ versus ‘fiction’ debate sees quantitative research dealing with
‘truth’ and qualitative with ‘speculation’. The terms ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ are also
used. To typecast either approach is to ignore the underlying assumptions of each, in
particular, the understanding of the role of ‘values’. Whether any research can be ‘value-
free’ is a consistent theme of the qualitative paradigm. In addition, suggesting that
researchers favouring a qualitative manner make up their own rules or skew results
53
based on personal opinion, is forgetting the rich and varied history of this type of research
(as evidenced in the eight historical moments described above).
Finding the right approach for both topic and researcher is of fundamental importance to
any study. A second table by Cresswell (1994) details such considerations. Of the five
criteria mentioned in this table, “researcher’s worldview” and the “researcher’s
psychological attributes” are of key interest.
Table 5.2 Extract from Creswell’s (1994) table indi cating comfort level of researcher with qualitative and quantitative paradigms
Criteria Quantitative Paradigm Qualitative Paradigm
Researcher’s Worldview
A researcher’s comfort with the ontological, epistemological, axiological, rhetorical and methodological assumptions of the quantitative paradigm
A researcher’s comfort with the ontological, epistemological, axiological, rhetorical and methodological assumptions of the qualitative paradigm
Researcher’s Psychological attributes
Comfort with rules and guidelines for conducting research; low tolerance for ambiguity; time for study of short duration.
Comfort with lack of specific rules and procedures for conducting research; high tolerance for ambiguity; time for lengthy study.
Creswell (1994) suggests that researchers need to consider their ‘level of comfort’ when
working within either paradigm. The first criterion in the above table directly links to the
researcher’s ontological and epistemological stand. Psychological attributes specifically
address issues concerning the need for specific rules and regulations in relation to
carrying out research. In this regard, the qualitative paradigm offers a less stringent
approach with room for “ambiguity” (p. 5)
Both of Cresswell’s tables are useful in justifying why I have chosen a qualitative
approach. It was from a position of curiosity that I began this study. However, after years
of working in the area of teaching oral communication, I also brought with me a number of
personal beliefs. It is hard to categorise where these ‘beliefs’ came from, or in other
words, exactly why and how I knew what I knew. In returning to Cresswell’s (1994)
assumptions about the qualitative paradigm, my research process has particularly
evolved over the last four years. My original presumption – that the majority of students
either read or memorise a written essay – was too weak to stand as a hypothesis. More
54
importantly, such a premise could have led me on a more deductive approach to research
(in trying to prove this statement correct or incorrect). I was not convinced that arriving at
such a ‘fixed’ outcome would benefit the ongoing discussion concerning oral
presentations and the assessment of these. It soon became apparent that this study
favoured a more ‘emergent design’ where the research questions would become clearer
as the study progressed. Also, my previous experience and continued involvement in the
teaching and evaluating of prepared oral presentations for assessment within the
academy meant that, as a researcher, I had the opportunity to play an active rather than
passive role in this study. I was also privileged to undertake this study in a part-time
capacity; allowing for ample time to reflect.
While situating this study within the qualitative paradigm, it does not mean that the
quantitative approach is discredited or in fact seen as opposing. Elizabeth St. Pierre
(2002) summed up the problem of such a black and white understanding of research as
follows:
Unfortunately, it is often the case that those who work within one theoretical
framework find others unintelligible … it is not that a postmodernist (if anyone should
claim that label) would reject reality or objectivity or rationality as .. [a] mistaken
definition of postmodernism claims; rather, a postmodernist would say these
concepts are situated rather than universal because they are understood differently
within different epistemologies. (p.25)
The construction of a reality is none-the-less a ‘reality’ that can be examined, particularly
from where it originated or what continued influences have kept it active. As will become
apparent in the methods section, the overall approach to this study favours using a
variety of tools to explore the research questions some of which may be seen to fit more
comfortably in a quantitative realm. Before outlining the particular methods used, the
connection between my methodology and theoretical framework will be briefly
considered.
5.3 Theoretical framework and methodology
The rhetorical tradition is particularly relevant when exploring matters concerned with oral
communication because central to the study of rhetoric is the ongoing question of what is
knowledge is and what is truth, and if either can be validated. The idea that ‘truth’ and
55
‘reality’ may have multiple interpretations is also a consideration of the qualitative
paradigm. This is supported by Bishop (2007) who suggests that what emerges from any
research project is “knowledge claims” rather than absolutes (p.12). Taking this view, the
research outcome is less about seeking or reaching general agreement and more about
offering an interpretation that can be supported or disputed by others interested in the
field (Bishop, p. 12).
The central purpose of this research project is to explore, and potentially assist in
understanding, how prepared oral presentations for assessment contribute to both the
classroom learning experience as well as longer term oral communication needs. In light
of the ontological and epistemological concerns highlighted in the previous section, this
research is best conducted through an interpretivist lens with a focus on a socially
constructed reality. An interpretivist paradigm sees the role of the researcher as part of
the construction. While acknowledging diversity within an interpretivist approach to
research, Glesne (2011) states that a common goal is "understanding human ideas,
actions, and interactions in specific contexts" (p. 8). In terms of data analysis, qualitative
researchers can draw on a number of different options but again Glesne (2011) suggests
that at the core of this type of research is the need to "organise what you have seen,
heard, and read so that you can figure out what you have learned and make sense of
what you have experienced"(p. 184). In particular, she suggests the need to "link your
story to other stories" (p. 184).
The inclusion of interviews and document analysis, as well as my ongoing participation in
teaching and evaluating oral presentations, has expanded the context of this research
and meant that it was not solely approached through isolation or reduction. For, as
Kincheloe (2004) observes, taking “phenomena from the contexts and processes that
give them life and meaning” [can end up] destroy[ing] them” (p. xi). I take this to mean
that to offer any insight into what is meant by the word ‘oral’ in ‘prepared oral
presentations for assessment’, and to investigate delivery choices of students with such
presentations, I need to draw on a variety of tools, as well as assumptions, that have
been worked and reworked over the centuries. This echoes the original French meaning
of the term ‘bricoleur’ that of a “handyman or handywoman who makes use of the tools
available to complete a task” (Kincheloe, 2004, p1). Far from relegating methodology to a
concept of ‘anything goes’, the bricolage enables active “complexity” (p. 2) in carrying out
research; but it does so in a fluid manner rather than procedural. This has an influence
56
on how knowledge is not only generated but also viewed, again, enabling the researcher
to become part of the “production and interpretation of knowledge” rather than seeking
“realism” (p. 2) and seeming objectivity. The ‘bricolage approach’ to research can be
summed as follows:
In the active bricolage we bring our understanding of the research context together
with our previous experience with research methods. Using the knowledge, we tinker
in the Levi-Straussian sense with our research methods in field-based and
interpretative contexts. This tinkering is a high-level cognitive process involving
construction and reconstruction, contextual diagnosis, negotiation and readjustment.
Bricoleurs understand that researchers’ interaction with the objects of their
inquiries is always complicated, mercurial, unpredictable and of course, complex.
(Kincheloe, 2004, p. 3)
I strongly relate to Kincheloe’s (2004) use of “construction and reconstruction, contextual
diagnosis, negotiation and readjustment” (p.3), for my research journey involved all of
these. In particular, this journey includes an ongoing dialogue concerning knowledge and
language and how current practices in the teaching and assessment of oral presentations
(including how and what students understand about preparing oral presentations) are
constructed from both of these.
5.4 Methods
In relation to the impetus and imperatives of interpretivist research, Glesne (2011) offers
the following:
With the research goal of interpreting the social world from the perspectives of those
who are actors in that social world, it follows that the research methods include
interacting with people in their social contexts and talking with them about their
perceptions. (p. 8)
I originally planned to interview students as my main method of research to explore what
students actually think and do in relation to delivering a prepared classroom oral
presentation for assessment. However, my literature review included a number of
criterion-referenced assessment sheets (rubrics) used in the preparation and assessment
of oral presentations. It soon became evident that these sixty-four documents, collected
57
from across Queensland, Australia and North America, offered much to this study and
demanded careful analysis.
5.4.1 Interviews
An effective way to capture the student’s perspective concerning oral presentations is
through face-to-face interviewing. This method of data gathering allows for ideas to be
more fully explored than surveys or even focus groups. Kvale (1996) offers three “key
issues” (p. 126) that need to be considered before interviewing can be effectively used as
a research tool. He refers to these issues as the “what, why and how” of interviewing (p.
126). The ‘what’ or “pre-knowledge of the subject matter” (p. 126) comes from my
experience as both an instructor and assessor of oral presentations as well as from the
literature. The ‘why’ or “clear purpose for the interview” (p. 126) also comes from my
experience which in turn has informed my research questions. The ‘how’ involves the
actual development of the interview. To enable ideas to flow, I have chosen a semi-
structured approach to the interview process. This is in line with Kvale’s (1996)
description that such interviews have:
[a] sequence of themes to be covered, as well as suggested questions. Yet at the
same time there is an openness to changes of sequence and forms of questions in
order to follow up the answers given and the stories told by the subjects. (p. 124)
For purposes of clarity, logical development and range, I have based my questions
around the areas of preparation, delivery, and feedback, as well as bigger picture
concerns of why this type of assessment is included in the curriculum and what could be
done differently. The questions under each area have been redrafted after conducting
initial pilot interviews in line with what Kvale (1996) states as evaluating planned
questions both “thematically” which he describes as the “relevance to the research
theme” and “dynamically” or “the interpersonal relationship with the interview” (p. 129).
However, the semi-structured approach allowed for some flexibility with regard to
questions actually asked. That is, while a similar structure was followed throughout all 12
interviews, there was still some flexibility to be able to explore individual comments and
ideas. The relevance of this approach to my research is because this study is focussing
on the student perspective and student understandings of prepared oral presentations; in
particular how students prepare for and deliver prepared oral presentations. The dynamic
dimension has been considered in the progression of questions; that is, encouraging
58
students to talk about oral presentations in a broad sense before moving on to their
personal experiences. In the main, the questions have been framed to explore individual
understanding.
A concern with this type of research method is the ability to make participants feel
comfortable throughout the actual interview. This is especially important as my
participants are minors (aged 12-17). During my initial briefing, I explained to each
participant that I am interested in hearing their ideas and experiences in the area and that
there are no right or wrong answers. It is essential that this approach is maintained
throughout the interview so that participants view the experience as a ‘conversation’ that
values their input, rather than an examination. I chose purposeful sampling to ensure
participants were willing to reflect and also to ensure a cross-section of opinions. With
regard to a ‘willingness to reflect’, I believe that some familiarity with me, or at least
through a recommendation, made it easier to reassure participants that I was seeking
their opinion and experience only. Alternatively, I could have approached secondary
schools and asked for a random sample of volunteers to take part in this research project.
I believe that the only students who would have agreed to such a request would have
been those with a strong interest in the area, particularly those with experience in
debating or public speaking competitions. While these two areas are not unrelated to my
topic, my research question is dealing with prepared classroom presentations across a
range of student experiences and outcomes. As mentioned, 12 interviews were
conducted for this study. This number was deemed sufficient to identify key themes and
is consistent with the view that with qualitative research there are no specific rules
concerning quantity (Travers, 2001, Kvale, 1996).
5.4.2 How the interviews were analysed
Ten interviews were conducted with students currently enrolled in a Brisbane state or
private secondary school from Years 8 to 12. To extend this continuum, an additional two
interviews were conducted, one with a Year 7 student and the second with a first-year-
university student. (In total, ten different schools were represented). This resulted in over
150 pages of transcripts. To assist in examining such a large amount of data, I drew on
what Kvale (1996) refers to as meaning condensation which “involves a reduction of large
interview texts into briefer, more succinct formulations” (Kvale, 1996, p. 192).
59
To fully engage with the data, I transcribed each interview and then read through the
transcripts several times. I had crafted the interview around nine specific topics, during
analysis I examined each topic in terms of student understanding. (For further details, see
Appendix D). The next step involved looking for key ideas in each interview and reducing
the available data into shorter phrases. The overall aim was to pick up on the experiences
of each student. To provide some consistency in analysing such a large number of
transcripts, 34 questions were used across each interview. From here, I examined all 12
interviews and identified common themes. This led to the emergence of six overarching
questions:
1. Why are prepared oral presentations assessed in the classroom, including
any future benefits?
2. How do students feel about giving prepared oral presentations for
assessment?
3. What have students been told in preparation for oral assessment pieces?
4. How do students prepare for oral presentations for assessment?
5. How do students use and interpret criteria sheets, in relation to both
instruction and feedback?
6. What do students believe could be done to make such tasks more effective?
Chapter Six presents my initial findings including excerpts from the interviews as a way of
highlighting the importance of the student ‘voice’ in this type of analysis. Once these
themes had been identified, it was then possible to examine them in a more theoretical
light in relation to the overall purpose of this particular study (Kvale and Brinkman, 2009,
p. 207). Far from being ‘critical’ of student responses, I do take on the role of ‘critic’ in
terms of reconciling the student responses in relation to wider approaches to the teaching
and learning of oral presentation skills. This formed the basis of the final chapter, my
discussion.
In addition to ‘meaning condensation’, my analysis also includes aspects of “meaning
structuring through narratives” (Kvale, 1996, p. 199) in the sense that how students
explain their preparation strategies has been cast as a story in terms of having a
60
beginning, middle, and end. This type of research also allows for the more quantitative
method of ‘counting’ specific phenomena. For example, the number of times ‘writing’, or a
derivative, is mentioned in each interview. As Kvale (1996) states, such a “free interplay
of techniques” (p. 203) allows for a deeper connection with the data. As a broad
consideration, emphasis is placed on the language of oral presentations for assessment
and, in particular, how students perceive the role of language in both oral and written
assessment tasks. The student responses are investigated in two ways:
1. Through targeted questioning such as: ‘Does preparing for an oral
presentation for assessment differ from written assessment?’
2. By analysing the language, and key concepts and terms used by participants
when answering questions. For example: “The first thing I did was jot down
dot points about what I’m going to say in each paragraph. I concentrated on
writing it first.”
5.4.3 Document analysis
Document analysis is included as another way of exploring the role of prepared oral
presentations for assessment. This involved analysing 64 criterion-referenced
assessment sheets used for both instructional and feedback purposes. Ten of the
interviewed students were able to produce a marking rubric used at the time of a recent
in-class oral presentation. To provide for a more detailed investigation, an additional 54
marking rubrics were collected.14 In summary, 40 rubrics are from Australian schools
(including 26 for use in Queensland schools) and 24 are generated from overseas and
accessed via the internet.
Glesne (2011) suggests that the inclusion of such documents helps to complement other
methods of data collection. For example, it can challenge ideas from interviews as well as
assist in identifying patterns (p. 90). In drawing on this type of data collection, I have
heeded Hodder’s (2001) warning that such documents can be “given new meanings”
14 Due to the ready availability of internet resources, I have included rubrics from Queensland schools, Australian schools, as well as overseas (from school websites, online rubric generators, colleges, and general instructional material). I justify my inclusion of both Australian and overseas rubrics because of the overlap that can be seen with these marking instruments; that is, similar or identical comments can be found on rubrics generated from overseas and Australia.
61
when “reread in different contexts” (p. 156). In particular, while I have access to these
documents (either given to me by students or freely available on the internet), I am not
privy to how they were issued in the classroom and whether or not any additional
information (written or spoken) was given for overall clarification. However, as documents
specifically created to assist students in preparing to present, as well as used at the time
of actual assessment, they provide rich data for this study. Therefore these documents
will be scrutinised to uncover what specific elements, including speaking traits, are
privileged during the assessment of prepared oral presentations.
Finally, I draw on aspects of participant observation to support this study while refraining
from suggesting it was a specific method of investigation. For Spradley (1980) life
involves navigating through a series of “social situations”. For the researcher, such ‘real-
life’ situations provide opportunities for investigation. Spradley (1980) suggests that once
a researcher elects to participate in a particular ‘event’ or ‘situation’ on deeper level, new
perspectives are gained. He goes on to detail a number of different types of participation
including non-participation as well as passive, moderate, active, and finally, complete
participation. As the teacher (tutor) it is impossible for me to participate in tutorials at the
level or ‘status’ of student, however this research opportunity has enabled me to look
afresh at what I have been doing on a regular basis for many years – instructing and
evaluating student oral presentations. This involved connecting what I have been
studying with my weekly tutorials and challenging the notion of ‘effective’ oral
presentation. Taking time to reflect on such practices echoes the work of philosopher
and researcher, Donald Schӧn (1930-1997). Schӧn (1991) suggests that while going
about daily duties, many professionals are struck by a moment of “surprise” which makes
them “turn back on their action” (p. 50). Schӧn (1991) refers to the process of “reflecting-
in-action” as a way of coping with “situations of uncertainty” (p. 50). He sees the potential
in such moments of reflection:
When intuitive, spontaneous performance yields nothing more than the results
expected for it, then we tend not to think about it. But when intuitive performance
leads to surprises, pleasing and promising or unwanted, we may respond by
reflecting-in action (p. 56).
62
This study began from a moment of ‘surprise’. For educators, such reflection is vital and
often challenges long-standing ideas especially in trying to draw together current
practices with the theory that underpins it.
5.5 Ethical clearance
This research project has been granted ethical clearance through QUT.
5.6 Gathering the data
To gauge student experience with oral presentations, I interviewed 12 students from 10
Brisbane secondary schools. Each interview was recorded and lasted between 25 and 40
minutes. I transcribed each interview. For privacy and conditions of ethical clearance,
each student was given a pseudonym. The breakdown is as follows:
Table 5.3: Breakdown of students interviewed for th is study Name Gender Year Level School
Andrew Male 9 Private
Brock Male 12 Private
Caitlin Female 11 Private
Donna Female 12 State
Edward Male 9 Private
Flynn Male 12 State
Glen Male 7 State
Hannah Female First year uni Private
Isobel Female 9 State
Jenna Female 12 Private
Katie Female 11 State
Lauren Female 8 Private
63
6
FINDINGS
6.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the aim is to mine the data to make visible the issues underpinning how
students approach oral presentations for assessment; in particular the relationship to
overall delivery. The purpose is not to analyse so much as to distil the issues, and will
therefore draw on student understanding through 12 interviews as well as issues of
instruction and feedback via 64 criterion-referenced oral presentation marking sheets,
referred to as rubrics. Once these issues have been brought forward, a discussion of
these findings is presented in Chapter Seven. Data from the interviews is presented first.
This section begins with consideration of my first three research questions:
6.2 What students perceive are the benefits of givi ng prepared oral presentations?
In seeking the student perspective, the focus was on why prepared oral presentations are
part of the classroom experience and what, if any, are the future benefits of this type of
assessment. All interviewed secondary school students15 named English as a subject in
which they were required to deliver prepared oral presentations for assessment. In
addition, other subjects identified as including this type of assessment were: Global
Studies, Study of Religion, Philosophy and Reason, SOSE (Studies of Society and
Environment), Japanese, Health, Physical Education, Science, Physics, Geography,
French, History, Modern History, Music, Business, and Social Sciences.
When asked why prepared oral presentations were part of classroom assessment, the
most favoured responses from students interviewed were: ‘improving confidence’, ‘future
study options’ and ‘future work related tasks’ as illustrated by the following comments:
I think it is a major facet of when you get a job – you make a lot of presentations to
society, to clients and people around the workforce. (Brock)
I guess they help your communication skills and just general confidence. (Caitlin)
15 Year 7 student Glen was the only interviewee who did not directly mention English.
64
I guess to become a bit more confident in front of a large group of people, more
experience for when you finish school and have to do that and talk to a group of
people. [Can you think about any experience after school when you might have to
speak in front of a group of people?] Yeah, like I’m at uni at the moment so in a prac
group, each week someone has to get up and talk in front of the whole group about
what you will be doing that day. (Hannah)
These responses are in keeping with what the literature suggests is a major reason for
including prepared oral presentations in the curriculum. That is, as an ‘alternative
approach’ to assessment, such opportunities provide for more ‘real world’ or ‘authentic’
tasks that directly link to future work-related experiences.
In describing the ‘benefits’ of such presentations, eight students mentioned ‘improving
general confidence’. (Refer Appendix E for additional comments, p. 157). Outside of
confidence building, the following comments add to the perceived benefits of this type of
assessment. One student mentioned that training in prepared oral presentations will
increase a student’s ability to “influence” others when speaking (Brock); two students
stated that this type of assessment enabled you to “see your peers from a different
perspective” (Caitlin) or actually “hear what they’ve done” (Hannah) as opposed to
handing in a written assignment. In addition, one student suggested this type of
assessment can help when “you’re not going well with friends [because] if you give a
good oral presentation it can help you with things like that as well” (Edward).
Furthermore, Katie stated that ‘prepared presentations’ enabled the student to “prepare it”
instead of just talking about something randomly, while Lauren pointed to a shared
learning effect as with the following comment, “so that not only are you learning but the
class is learning from what you’ve learnt.”
The ability to ‘share’ what one has learnt with others was an idea mentioned during the
interviews. In addition, the inclusion of an ‘audience’ rather than a solitary reader
(teacher) highlights a substantial difference between much oral and written assessment.
The role of audience is especially pertinent in light of personal (student) feelings about
this type of assessment which will be discussed later.
65
6.3 What instruction do students receive on how to present ‘orally’?
This question is considered in two ways. First, what have students been told in
preparation for oral assessment pieces and second, with such instructional guidelines in
mind, how do students actually prepare to present? Curriculum requirements provide
specific guidelines concerning oral assessment. However, when it comes to the actual
delivery of oral presentations, the 12 students highlighted a number of individual
teacher/subject preferences. It should be noted that the speaking advice listed is from
each student’s perspective. For example, consider the following comment from Andrew:
On one of my recent orals, I got an A for it and the only thing the teacher said that I
could have improved was if I had memorised it. I only looked at the palm cards once
or twice but, if I hadn’t had any, and knew it off by heart that would have got me the
A+. That’s what I’m going to do for the future.
This is how Andrew interpreted his teacher’s comment and may or may not be how the
comment was originally intended. Also, rather than simply being a teacher preference,
some instructions may come from the school or subject level, as with the following
comment from a secondary school English teacher:
By Year 11 and 12 we expect our students to memorise their talks. They can’t get an
‘A’ if they use notes (personal communication, 2009).
The vital issue of general advice and instruction to students is considered in the next
three sections focussing on comments received both prior to and after presenting.
6.3.1 General advice prior to presenting
Students offered the following ideas concerning general advice they have received about
delivering oral presentations:
Plan first, then write oral, speak it to yourself – get rid of anything that doesn’t sound
good. Trim down to fit time limit. If can, do it without palm cards. (Andrew)
Don’t look at notes. Memorise speech. Use different voice timbre. Emphasis on
different words, crescendo and deep crescendo of voice tone. Don’t put hands in
66
pocket. Actions to go with words. Facial expressions match words. Big one – believe
in what you say. (Brock)
Eye contact, hand gestures. Mainly memorise a script not use palm cards but do
have options. (Caitlin)
Refer Appendix E for additional comments, p. 159
All students were able to offer some guidelines received from past or present teachers.
Nine out of 12 students directly mentioned the need for eye contact or not looking at
notes; nine, also addressed issues of body language or gestures; six referred to particular
modulative devices, such as pace and pitch. Four also provided the more general
comments of “believe in yourself”, “make it personal”, “stand confident”, and “keep
audience engaged”.
6.3.2 General advice on speaking notes
Meantime, advice regarding types of speaking notes, and the availability of a lectern, also
varied:
In legal studies you can use a lectern. Past English teachers haven’t liked them
because students slouch or lean on them. (Katie)
In global can use small notes, last one penalised for having big clumps of notes. In
English, just want drafts; don’t really care what type of notes are used. Just look at
drafts and give changes to make. (Andrew)
Last year there was a lectern in the room but this year the teacher has requested
palm cards. (Edward)
Refer Appendix E for additional comments, p. 159
Six students made reference to a lectern being available; this depended on individual
teacher preferences, as with the above example when Katie stated that one of her past
teachers disliked lecterns because students slouch or lean on them. Teacher preference
was also evident regarding the amount of written information that students were allowed
to refer to at the time of delivery. Five students stated that some teachers requested dot
points. Again, advice differed from the more prescriptive instruction of being allowed to
only “take up 70 words” (Hannah) to the more ambiguous statement that “my teacher
67
says I’m not dot-point enough” (Glen). Some students were encouraged to use dot points
while for others it was an essential requirement as when Lauren said that she was “not
allowed to write full sentences” on her speaking notes. Regarding using A4 pieces of
paper or palm cards, again advice differed. For some students it was a personal choice
while others noted specific teacher likes and dislikes, such as when Isobel said that some
teachers discouraged palm cards because it can lead to the “palm card shuffle”.
6.3.3 Written feedback as instructional material
In addition, each student was asked to reflect on individual comments/feedback received
at the end of presentations, usually written on the marking rubric. Examples of how
students interpreted/remembered these comments include:
Just general comments such as ‘great effort’. Just some little hints like ‘you could
stand a bit still next time’ or ‘you might not have been as clear as I would have liked’
it’s all minor things that don’t really affect the grade – just looking for something to
give feedback on. (Andrew)
I think mostly they are to do with eye contact. (Caitlin)
My teacher has commented on how I speak, if I speak clearly and how fast I speak.
(Donna)
Students identified ten specific areas regarding recent written feedback – eye contact,
keeping to a time limit, volume, pace, posture, staying on topic, clarity, vocal variety,
gesture and stumbling or hesitancy. The following table shows these nominated areas
(from most mentioned to least mentioned):
68
Table 6.1 Specific areas of feedback from recent sp eeches
Feedback comment
Number of times this trait/area was mentioned
Pace 5
Eye contact 4
Keeping to a time limit
3
Volume 2
Clarity 2
Vocal variety 2
Gesture 2
Stumbling or hesitancy
2
Posture 1
Staying on topic 1
Ten out of the 12 students said that these written comments had been helpful or that they
used them in preparing for future presentations. Only one student said that they were not
helpful because each speaking task was different. Finally, one student acknowledged that
sometimes such comments were helpful but at other times, “they didn’t really help that
much”. Overall, written feedback was received in a favourable light.
Instructional guidelines or advice were then considered in relation to how students
prepared oral presentations for assessment. Each student was able to offer a particular
process that they undertook in preparing an oral presentation for final delivery. For
example, Flynn uses the following:
1. Look at ‘A’ band [on marking rubric] to know what you have to achieve while
writing it.
2. Write out ideas.
3. Brainstorm and research.
69
4. Start writing and keep going until speech is written out in full.
Refer Appendix E for additional comments, p. 160
The above four-step process is in keeping with general speaking advice of deciding on a
purpose (what needs to be achieved); brainstorming, researching and generating ideas
before writing a draft or preparation outline. Other students followed a similar approach of
thinking about the topic, which included reading task sheets, listening to teachers, and
then researching or starting to gather ideas. Caitlin referred to creating a ‘mind-map’
which is a particular way of brainstorming and connecting ideas. In describing the process
of preparation up until the time of delivery, all students referred to ‘writing’ at some stage.
This word, or derivative, was mentioned 32 times across all interviews under the area of
speech preparation, for example, “I write what I’m going to say in the introduction”
(Brock);”I wrote one speech but decided not to use it” (Edward); and, “I write the speech
in sections” (Jenna). In addition, the word ‘proofread’ was mentioned by two students as
was ‘paragraph’. Further to how students prepare for oral presentations, the following
three areas are addressed: rehearsal, speaking notes, and language.
6.3.4 Rehearsing the presentation
The importance of a written script was again highlighted in relation to how students
rehearsed for an upcoming oral presentation in the classroom. Seven students referred to
‘reading’ from a written script in the lead up to the day of delivery, as with, “I read it aloud
over and over” (Caitlin and Lauren), and “I read it out every day” (Katie). On the subject of
rehearsal, Flynn said he practised in front of his Mum and Dad and would have run
through his most recent speech “more than ten times” before the day of delivery. The
number of times a student rehearsed their speech ranged from one to 20, with an
approximate mean of 10 rehearsals before the day of presentation.16 Some students gave
particular strategies of how they rehearsed, for example, “[I practise] in my bedroom. I
usually just walk around in circles or go downstairs and just speak it out loud [to family
members].” For Brock, ‘reading it aloud’ and practising in front of family members were
also useful strategies:
16 If a student gave a range of rehearsal times, e.g. 10-20 or 3-5, the middle number was used. Also, some students did not suggest a number but rather comments such as “I read it aloud every day”. In these instances, an approximation was used based on other information provided.
70
First I will just read it a couple of times to make sure it is just flowing through because
I’ve written it I kind of have a general gist of what’s coming up. And then I get to facial
expression. I generally do it a couple of times in front of the mirror and then a couple
of times in front of Mum or Dad or someone like that so you get an audience and you
feel more comfortable presenting in front of actual people.
6.3.5 Speaking notes used at time of presentation
How students prepare to deliver their presentations was a major area of inquiry when
conducting the interviews. Part of this was to investigate what support material, in the
form of notes or a script, students used at the actual time of delivery. While some
students stated that different teachers had different requirements in terms of the type of
speaking notes required, all students were asked the following question: Do you take a
full script (either on a sheet of paper or on palm cards) with you when you present?
Again, answers varied:
Full script because it makes me feel more confident in case of stage fright and
forgetting. (Hannah)
Take out dot points – but teacher says not dot-point enough. (Glen)
Refer appendix E for additional comments, p. 163
Eight students stated they took out a full copy of their speech on the day of presentation
(regardless of whether on palm cards or A4 paper). Of these, five students specifically
stated that they did this to reduce nerves or stress, whereas two students referred to
taking out a script but not relying on it. Three students said they used dot points because
of teacher requirements. Of these, one student said he only used dot points while another
preferred dot points but takes out full script if it is a complicated speech. Finally, one
student said it depended on teacher requirements but when asked his preference
responded with “full script on a music stand”. However, on further reflection, there was
some ambiguity regarding what is actually meant by the term ‘dot points’, as with this
comment from Lauren:
Well, originally I would write the whole thing out on palm cards and then I would put
in dot points. Then, I would make another set of palm cards, this time taking out all
71
words such as ‘and’, ‘I’, and ‘but’. It’s mainly just leaving the descriptive words all the
necessary words to remind me.
According to the literature, one reason why dot points are encouraged is in support of the
extemporaneous mode of delivery. This approach can be defined as a speech that has
been thoroughly planned, without going to the extremes of memorising or relying on a full
script at the time of delivery. To do this, speakers are asked to plan a logical progression
of points, so that while the actual words may change at the point of utterance, the
intended message/s remains the same. The idea of ‘speaking extemporaneously’ is to
promote a more natural, spontaneous, and conversational style of speaking in prepared
situations. However, simply reducing a full script to dot points does not necessarily mean
speakers will automatically use this approach. Discovering whether or not students
believed that they had given the same speech at school as the one that they practised at
home, regardless of whether a full script or dot points were used during the final
presentation, required some level of probing. Take for example the following excerpt from
Andrew’s (A)17 interview:
I: Would the words that you say differ much to the ones that are on the palm card?
A: It can, it can. If I am speaking and it flows an d I’m just reading it and I say
something different then I say okay, I’ll just keep going.
I: With the last piece of assessment, would you say that you said pretty much the same
speech that you had practised at home?
A: Yeah, pretty much, give or take a couple of word s.
This comment presents an anomaly. On the one hand it puts forward a reliance on a
written script while on the other, Andrew’s comment suggests that he could choose not to
‘read’ out what is in front of him. However, while Andrew acknowledges that he can
deviate from the original script, he also suggests that such changes are minimal and that
he “pretty much” presents the same speech as practised at home. For other students,
nerves were mentioned as a reason why the final delivery would move away from the
‘prepared script’ as with Lauren’s (L) example:
17 For transcript examples, the first letter of the student’s name is used to identify the interviewee. The interviewer is identified with the letter ‘I’.
72
L: I don’t think it would be too different, most o f the words would be the same
maybe the wording … I might accidently swap a few of the word s around.
I: So would that be because of nerves, more like a mistake rather than an intention?
L: Yeah, it can be a mistake but normally it would n’t have much impact because it
would still be the same sentence just reworded.
I: I suppose what I’m asking is do you say the same speech at school as the one you
have practised at home?
L: Yeah, pretty much
Refer Appendix E for additional comments, p. 164
The issue of recommending dot points over a full script is pertinent. Is the main objective
of using dot points to free a speaker from over relying on a written script or to increase
eye contact? On the surface these two considerations may appear complementary,
however if the primary goal is to ‘increase eye contact’ then that can also be achieved
through memorisation. It is a mistaken assumption that the use of dot points will
‘miraculously’ enable a speaker to present in an extemporaneous mode. As supported in
this study, memorisation can occur whether or not a full script or dot points are taken out
at the time of delivery. All 12 students interviewed stated that regardless of support
material taken out on the day of delivery, they would either memorise, or at least try in
part to memorise, a planned speech. Any changes from this prepared script would be
minimal. On this matter, Edward states a different approach when debating to presenting
an in-class oral task for assessment. He offers the following reason why his speech would
remain similar for in-class presentations:
Because when you’re doing an oral presentation, you are not really improvising and
it’s kind of set and you know that what you’ve already done is the way the teachers
wanted it planned out and so that’s the way you perform it.
In this instance, ‘planned’ can be substituted for ‘written’. Throughout the interviews,
students often referred to ‘writing’ when commenting on planning to present or in relation
to general feelings about this type of assessment:
73
(In response to whether he prefers a full script) Full script honestly, because I can
just write and ramble on for ages. (Andrew)
First I write down the major points that I want to speak about and the general ideas
it’s not until later when I’ve got everything, a general idea of what I want to do that’s
when I write out the speech. (Donna)
Well I might write it out simply and then I’d read it and then I might go away from it for
a day and then come back and proof read it. (Edward).
Assignments I find are easier, you write them and then hand them in whereas orals
you have to write them and then practise them, learn them enough so that you can
get those marks. (Jenna)
(Regarding which one is harder – oral or written tasks) I think they have similar
areas. Pretty much you have to write your oral anyway so in those terms you’ve got
to write them both. The oral comes with a lot more practice, you’ve got to stand in
front of a mirror and talk to yourself for hours. (Katie)
This connection to writing was further understood when it became apparent that all
secondary school students in this study were required to hand in a draft18 of their
speech before delivery. Students were asked why they believed this was necessary:
Because they [teachers] have so many to write, they only have a short amount of
time to actually write the comments they have to be able to have it there to remind
themselves of what we were saying and stuff. (Lauren)
Refer Appendix E for additional comments, p. 166
Of the 11 students who were required to hand in a draft, seven referred to teachers being
able to look at the draft after the speech was delivered to assist with remembering or
marking. Of these, three students made a distinction between content and delivery
18 Year 7 student, Glen, did not have to hand in a draft as this is not a usual requirement in primary school.
74
suggesting that teachers may concentrate on the delivery side during the actual
presentation and then refer to content at a later stage by way of the draft, as with:
Maybe while they are watching you they concentrate more on the nonverbal and the
gestures and then they can go back and read the script, maybe? (Caitlin).
Two students saw the draft as a way of helping teachers to evaluate a speech when a
student has trouble actually delivering it, for example:
If you aren’t very good at speaking and they [teachers] can’t understand what you are
saying – they can still look at the content and see what it is (Isobel).
Further, two students thought a draft allowed teachers to see how far a student had
actually deviated from the ‘agreed’ message, however contentious this may be. This
relates to a draft being handed in ahead of delivery, as with:
He wanted to be able to mark it knowing what we should have said in comparison to
what we did say and seeing that it still matched up in a way that ended as it should
have (Edward)
In relation to this, Flynn stated that the reason why he tried to say the same speech as
the one practised at home was because the teacher had already “marked” that version
through the draft. Finally, one student (Donna) stated her teacher required a draft just in
case the student was not ready to present on the day of assessment. The teacher would
at least have the draft to mark. Donna added that because students have to hand in a
draft a week before the actual presentation, the teacher can see who is working and who
is “slacking off.” These thoughts extend the marking frame of an oral assessment to
include before, during and after the actual presentation is delivered. Again, student
reflections on this type of assessment point to an overlap between the written and spoken
style.
6.3.6 The role of language
A connection to language was further explored by looking at perceived differences
between written and oral assessment pieces. As mentioned, all students spoke in terms
of ‘writing’ a speech during the preparation stage. In addressing any association between
75
what can traditionally be seen as ‘written’ or ‘oral’ assessment, students were asked:
Does preparing for a speech/talk differ from writing an assignment to be handed in? Of
the eight students who stated that there was a difference, five specifically mentioned
language in terms of there being a difference between oral and written language, or
because of the inclusion of a wider audience. To investigate this further, students were
asked to comment on how they approached issues of language when preparing for an
oral presentation for assessment. Seven students referred to using ‘simpler’ language:
“Try not to put in heaps of big words.” (Andrew); “I use shorter sentences.” (Caitlin); “I
guess it’s the language that I use in a conversation.” (Donna); “I might write it out simply.”
(Edward); “It has to be simpler than a written task because you have to say it and so you
can’t use super hard words.” (Flynn); “Often the teachers say to use slightly simpler forms
of English so that people who are listening can actually understand instead of big long,
windy sentences that you can’t keep track of.” (Hannah); “Words are normally longer in
written pieces because you don’t have to say them. Some words can be difficult to say,
especially if you are nervous and talk fast.” (Isobel)
On further questioning, Caitlin, Donna, and Flynn did not believe that their approach to
writing a speech was much different to writing an assignment. However, the idea that
language used in a speech required careful consideration was highlighted with the
following comments:
I guess when I’m writing a speech I tend to find, to use language that is more, I
guess, used for highly educated people. I don’t know. [Why is that do you think?] To
sound professional, to show that you know what you’re talking about. (Donna)
[After writing the first draft] I’d read it and then I might go away from it for a day and
then come back and proof read it. And then I’ll read through it and change some of
the words to more complex words for a bit more of an effect on the vocabulary side.
(Edward)
Sometimes I get the thesaurus out because I’m in Year 11 and this is not a uni oral
presentation. Sometimes I talk with Mum because sometimes when you read it out
aloud it doesn’t sound as good when you are just reading it from paper in your head.
So usually I will write out my speech in different parts and then sit down with Mum or
a teacher or a friend and get them to give me their opinion about how it sounds as I
76
say it. I might then look up a thesaurus or go through some articles on the Internet to
see how they have worded it. (Katie)
I like to use expressive words and I don’t like to use the same descriptive word more
than once so a lot of the time I’ll look in a thesaurus. I like to be quite descriptive.
(Lauren)
The role of language is crucial to this study in terms of how perceptions meet reality. For
example, the following extract from Hannah’s transcript suggests that oral language
needs to be simple, singular, and succinct, an overarching idea supported in the
literature.
I: Tell me a little bit about the language you would use for an oral presentation. Did you
think about that during the preparation and writing stage?
H: Yes, often the teachers say to use slightly sim pler forms of English so that
people who are listening can actually understand in stead of big long, windy
sentences that you can’t keep track of.
I: So thinking about language was important while you were actually writing your
speech?
H: Yes
I: Is it different to the way you would approach a written piece?
H: Yes, because [in a written piece] you can use lo nger sentences, more
vocabulary ... a bit more complex language.
Nine students were able to provide a written copy of their speech, including Hannah. The
following is an excerpt from her speech:
Dominant discourses of the community and compassion, as well as femininity are
mobilised in this campaign [16 words]. The target demographic can feel the
vulnerability and exposure of the homeless women, which lead them to feel
compassionate and willing to help out in the community [27 words]. A sense of social
and community responsibility is privileged [9 words]. Femininity is proffered in the
77
campaign by comparing the homeless women to the fortunate women doing ‘typical’
feminine activities [19 words]. These discourses have been appropriated to enable
this group to relate to the homeless and see that they can, by demonstrating a
willingness to help the lives of others, benefit the homeless community [33 words].
While students are aware of the need to use ‘simple language’ and ‘expressive language’,
the reality of their scripts does not reflect this understanding.
6.4 How are oral skills being assessed at the time of delivery?
Again, this question was considered from the student’s perspective in particular how they
interpret the criterion-referenced assessment sheets used for both instructional and
feedback purposes. Ten19 students were able to provide a task sheet and marking rubric
for a recent in-class oral presentation. (These sheets had been given to students prior to
the day of actual assessment/delivery). Marking rubrics used in English in Years 11 and
12 follow current syllabus requirements, and therefore, although attending different
schools, Brock, Jenna, Donna, and Hannah all produced similar examples. However, the
marking rubrics collected from the other seven students (from Years 7 to 10), were
unique in terms of teacher/school preferences. The use, and or interpretation, of these
marking rubrics was well discussed during each interview. Two questions are addressed
specifically in this section:
• How do students understand/interpret specific requirements/terms mentioned
on marking rubrics?
• What is their understanding of those marking oral presentations, of the
relative significance of content and delivery?
Regarding how students interpret marking rubrics, it soon became apparent that this area
had enormous potential for investigation and warrants further consideration. The following
comments are provided for initial deliberation. When asked to explain his understanding
of what is meant by ‘excellent use of voice’, Andrew suggested the following:
19 Two students, Andrew and Katie, had been given a criterion-referenced assessment sheet but were unable to provide a copy at the time of the interview. While my ethical clearance covered speaking with students, it did not extend to approaching schools.
78
I’m thinking that you’re clear, that you don’t stutter or say ‘um’ or ‘ahh’ a lot. You’re
saying it clearly and you know what you’re speaking about and you can put emphasis
on certain things to portray your speech as good so your audience can go ‘oh well,
that part must have obviously been angry or sad’. You can put emphasis in voice that
will change the mood of what you’re saying.
The actual criteria sheet provided little clarification of what this term was implying and,
therefore, Andrew’s comment was a fair attempt at explaining what it means. Additionally,
while Brock at first stated that he had “absolutely no idea what they [marking rubrics] are
saying”, he then added the following by way of explanation:
It’s really confusing and really ambiguous. For example it says ‘exploiting the
conventions of a workshop genre’. Well I know what that one means but that’s only
because I’ve been through it a number of times with teachers, when an oral comes
up I will ask the teacher what does that one mean what does that one say but when I
was first handed one of these criteria sheets I wouldn’t even look at it because I had
absolutely no idea what they were talking about – it’s really confusing.
When asked to explain what is meant by ‘sustaining use of a wide range of
spoken/signed and nonverbal features that contribute to meaning’ Brock was again only
able to provide some detail of what this could mean. However, he also suggested that this
type of language on marking rubrics could be simplified:
It could easily be summarised by saying how have you presented and then just
saying pronunciation, phrasing etc. When they say stuff like this (points to first part –
sustaining use of wide range...) it throws you off because you think they might be
speaking about something different.
For other students, there was some ambiguity regarding levels of achievement. Caitlin
could not identify a difference between the terms ‘reasonably effective’ and ‘only partly
effective’ that was used to distinguish the grading scales of ‘B’ and ‘C’ for all criteria under
both contextual factors (texts and contextual understandings) and textual features
(linguistic structures and features). Donna said she did not see a big difference between
‘sustaining use of a wide range of spoken/signed and nonverbal features that enhance
communication as a panellist’ (A band) and ‘using a wide range of spoken/signed and
79
nonverbal features that enhance communication as a panellist’ (B band). Hannah found it
difficult to explain what ‘control of textual features’ means. It is noted that this part of each
interview resulted in more pauses as students took time to study particular sections of the
marking rubric used to assess their most recent presentations. For example, the one
used to assess Isobel’s oral presentation included the following information within three of
the bands dealing with voice features:
A B C
Consistently audible, clearly understood and no breaks
Consistently audible, clearly understood and few breaks
Consistently audible, clearly understood and some breaks
When asked to explain the difference between ‘few breaks’ and ‘some breaks’, Isobel
took her time before responding with, “not much in my understanding, some is probably
more than a few breaks.” The following excerpt is from Jenna’s interview transcript. She
was at first asked to explain the difference between the A and B bands in terms of ‘control
of textual features’. After some consideration she stated there were not any. To explore
this further, the interview progressed as follows:
I: It says in the A column ‘very effective’ and then in the B column just ‘effective’
J: Yeah, and then here it says ‘sustaining consiste nt control’ and there it says
‘sustaining control’
I: So what do you think in this area you would have to do to get an A and what would
you do to get a B?
J: Instead of just sustaining control you would mai ntain the control over the
entire speech. Not as much for a B.
I: When we look at the C description it appears to stay pretty much the same except for
that the word ‘effectively’ changes to ‘adequately’. So what do you think a student would
have to do to get a tick in this part here (point to C box still in non-verbal features).
J: Well up here (points to A) they would have to us e eye contact, facial
expression, gesture and incorporate the script thro ughout the entire presentation.
80
I: So eye contact here doesn’t mean you can’t use notes
J: No, it just means that you have to give enough e ye contact.
I: So in the B
J: They probably have eye contact but not as much o r maybe not as effective
maybe just looking at one person
I: So what about this C one?
J: I guess if they just use these things moderately .
I: Is this something you’ve looked at before?
J: No
This was an interesting moment because these observations were being made at the
time of the interview. Jenna gave a reasonable explanation of what could constitute a
difference between an ‘A’ or ‘B’ rating in relation to eye contact – “they probably have eye
contact but not as much or maybe not as effective, maybe just looking at one person”.
However, her later comment referring to the ‘C’ band points to the difficulty in trying to
provide a sliding scale of competence with certain criteria, in particular those related to
delivery – “I guess if they just use these things moderately”. Overall, there was some
difficulty in being able to differentiate a number of comments in neighbouring bands. This
difficulty was not only evident on the marking rubrics but also in the way students
interpreted these comments, as with this extract from Lauren’s interview:
I: What do you need to do in this area to get an ‘A’ in communication skills compared to
a ‘B’?
L: Well it’s just putting more emphasis, so a ‘B’ i s looking at your palm cards
occasionally during your talk for eye contact but a n ‘A’ would be not looking at
your palm cards much at all.
As with many of the criteria sheet examples, Lauren’s attempt of defining what is meant
by ‘occasionally’ and ‘not much at all’ is vague.
81
In relation to how helpful students found the marking rubrics in preparing their oral
presentations, responses were again mixed. Four students said that they examined the
‘A’ column to either ‘get a high mark’ or ‘understand teacher expectations’. Three
students said that they found the language on rubrics difficult to understand. One student
said that while he did not use them in all subjects, because he had “developed his own
speaking style”, he did in Japanese because:
When I have a speaking task in that subject I’ll use them because I’m not exactly
fluent in Japanese. (Edward)
Isobel suggested that without the marking rubric she would not have received “as good a
mark”. Meantime, while Lauren said that the information concerning research and
knowledge and understanding was particularly helpful, she still looked at the
communication criteria as a way of “remembering to do these things”. When asked if it
was easier to follow the criteria for knowledge and understanding rather than
communication, she answered:
It can be; the ones up there are more direct because they say you need to do this.
But these ones [points to communication criteria] are kind of, they don’t really say
what you need to do but are just there.
This last comment again highlights a division between content and delivery. While this
was a consideration of the submission of drafts prior to delivering the oral presentation,
students were also asked if they thought those marking their presentations were more
focussed on what was said or how it was said. Again, answers varied:
I think it’s how you deliver it because if they were just interested in what you had to
say then why would they get you to do it? They would just make it written. (Andrew)
Brock at first suggested 50/50 but then added that he actually thought it was more on
delivery. His summed up his reasoning for this: “I’ve seen kids get up there and
present a terrible speech but say it really well and get great marks. (Brock)
I think they are equally weighted (Caitlin)
82
It comes down equally to all three I think, because it’s verbal, vocal and visual. Vocal
being how you say it, verbal is what you say and visual being how you present it. So
our teacher marks evenly on all three. (Edward)
What you say (Glen)
I think maybe, well, I don’t know, I was going to say 50/50 but if you are really boring
and monotone but what you are saying is really good, well you can’t get a very good
mark. But then, if you were really dramatic but what you were saying was absolute
rubbish then again, you wouldn’t really be able to get that good a mark. So, yeah, I
would say about half in half. (Hannah)
How you say it. (Jenna)
I think it depends on the teacher. My teacher took on board that kids were nervous
and I think she was a little easier on marking in terms of presentation. I think it’s a lot
harder to get a good mark on your content rather than your presentation because I
think they do take into consideration nerves or the fact that it’s a big class or a first
speech. So I think it’s easier to get a better mark rather than an average one on your
actual presentation as opposed to your hard copy. (Katie)
I think both, they are looking for your facial expression, eye contact and things like
that, but I think they are also looking for the research you’ve done and how you put
your presentation together. (Lauren)
In summary, two students suggested teachers favour content, three students said
delivery; six students said it was half and half 20 and one student said it depended on
individual teacher preferences. It is interesting to look at these comments in light of how
students suggested they ‘planned’ for both content and delivery:
It varies, but with the content I just focus on how the character would say it, what
words would he use and that’s basically it. The delivery I just basically stand in front
of the mirror and look at how I present and then I obviously get my parents to help
me with it and if I’m slouching and I don’t do it as well then I do it again and I fix what
I’ve done. Eventually I just get to the stage where I can just do it. (Andrew)
20 Edward described it as a three way split between verbal, vocal and visual
83
I work on them separately, I concentrate on my content when I’m planning and
writing it and then when I go and practise the speech, I’ve written it and I know it,
then I’ll add things such as facial expressions, pronunciation, hand movements and
stuff like that. I’ll add that in after I’ve written it so I can concentrate on different things
at different times. (Brock)
Not sure, I guess when I’m planning, I just think about what I need to do and what I
need to write. I don’t think about the delivery of it until maybe the final draft. Then I
think about how I’m going to say things. What I should say to entice the audience.
(Donna)
I tend to focus more on the content and doing the actual hard copy first and then
once I’ve got that out the way I don’t feel as stressed about it and then I can focus on
doing my delivery. (Katie)
When Edward was asked this question, he responded with:
I guess I just kind of... that’s a tricky question... personally for this oral I didn’t actually
look at the criteria. As long as I was within the rules which were outlined on the first
page, I kind of, because I know my teacher, knew what he would want as the
standard. And so I guess I just planned it in the same way as I would plan any other
oral.
As a way of following up Edward’s comment, the following question was posed to him:
I: I was talking with another student the other day, his comment was that he normally
writes the speech and then he adds the presentation skills, is that a fair enough idea?
E: I think that’s a pretty good idea, yeah. Definit ely when you haven’t had much
practice doing oral presentations then that’s a rea lly good idea.
Lauren was also asked this follow-up question, she responded:
Well in this [speech] I have actually put occasionally things like, point to pictures, use
eye contact. I think some people have a problem with swaying and fiddling. I have a
bit of trouble of fiddling on my shirt but normally it’s pretty good.
84
The idea that students ‘write the content’ of the speech and then ‘practise the delivery’ is
not surprising considering earlier comments relating to speech preparation in general.
The process of writing a script and then presenting/performing it was very evident in how
the interviewed students prepared oral presentations for assessment.
The very nature of oral presentations for assessment involves delivering a message to a
live audience.21 It is difficult to research what students do in relation to preparing and
delivering oral presentations for assessment without taking into consideration the
affective dimension of speaking in front of others. It is well documented that this type of
communication brings with it varying degrees of apprehension. For instance, a quick
Google search uncovers over four million hits relating to public speaking anxiety. While
this is not the aim of this present study, in searching for the students perspective it soon
became apparent that the emotional aspect of this type of assessment was very much
part of how students approach such tasks. In relation to this, two other ideas emerged
during the interviews that are deemed relevant to this analysis: how students feel about
giving oral presentations for assessment and what they believe could be done to make
such tasks more effective.
6.5 How do students feel about giving prepared oral presentations for
assessment?
In relation to how students feel about giving such presentations, again the responses
were wide ranging and insightful – often beyond the original sphere of the initial question.
For instance, when Jenna was asked whether she takes a full script out with her on the
day of presentation, she answered “yes” and added:
I feel nervous already when I’m on the spot, let alone not having everything I’m
meant to say. Even if I know it, I really like to have it there just in case.
Whereas for Edward, when asked about how he rehearsed his speech/talk, he
answered:
I’m so used to public speaking that if I get the time I’ll practise it say once or twice but
after that I’ll probably feel comfortable hopping up and saying it anyway.
21 Anecdotal evidence suggests that some students are able to submit oral presentations in a digital format however for this study all interviewed students were required to present in class.
85
These two answers demonstrate two very different attitudes to undertaking prepared oral
presentations for assessment. All 12 students were asked to discuss how they felt about
giving such presentations as well as anything they liked or disliked about this type of
assessment. As with the above example, answers varied depending on how ‘confident’
the student was with presenting in front of others:
Table 6.2 How do students feel about giving oral pr esentations?
How do you feel about oral
presentations?
What do you like about giving oral presentations?
What don’t you like about oral presentations?
Andrew Fine, normally quite happy when we do them.
Like the rush before presenting. Once started on a roll – don’t get that from written assignments. Have to do something with oral to make it a bit fun/challenging. Might have done assignment but still have extra hurdle – actually presenting it.
Difficult if don’t like topic. With written can just hand it in but with oral, this dislike, can come across when presenting.
Brock Practice helps but still stressful. Concerns include forgetting lines/stuttering
Nothing – not as bad as once. Don’t enjoy – just for marks. Got to do it. Important part of working but don’t enjoy.
They are subjective. Different teachers looking for different things. Get one mark with one teacher and another mark with a second teacher. Might be because of ambiguous criteria or personal expectations. More subjective than maths, physics
Caitlin Really nervous – when over feel relieved. Usually do ok with them so that’s good.
Entertain people – good when people are interested
Nerves
Refer appendix E for additional comments, p.158
86
Eight out of 12 students referred to some degree of nerves from ‘pretty nervous’ to ‘really
nervous’. Two of the remaining four students mentioned ‘stressful’ and ‘feeling
uncomfortable’. Significant factors in reducing nerves associated with this type of
assessment were ‘adequate preparation and practice’ along with a ‘favourable feeling
about the topic’. In fact, two students said that oral presentations can be ‘fun’ if you like
the topic, while a third said it was easier to “slip in emotion, opinion, and humour”
(Edward). This was seen as a positive outcome of such speaking tasks. Furthermore, five
of the 12 students commented positively on the fact that this type of assessment involves
an audience:
I like the rush when you are in front of a class and you are really nervous but you just
start and once you start you just get on the roll and when it’s done it’s just like –
sweet. I just don’t get that from written assignments. (Andrew)
I like being able to entertain people. It’s good when it’s entertaining and people are
interested in what you say. (Caitlin)
I do like it a little bit. For this one, you could choose your own topic and make your
own TV commercial so it was really interesting seeing what other people chose and
how they went about making a TV commercial so I liked it in the sense that you could
show other people what you’ve done. (Hannah)
Everyone in the class knew what my topic was prior to my presentation. After my
presentation I had a lot of students ask me questions about it which was good
because it helped to raise awareness about my topic. (Katie)
I like that the whole class can hear what I’ve learnt and that I haven’t just done all of
this work and that no-one is going to know about it. (Lauren)
The students interviewed for this study covered a range of feelings in terms of degree of
nervousness – from being ‘very nervous’ to ‘not being nervous at all’. However, no
student suggested that they had been so nervous that they had been unable to present.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that some teachers provide special presenting
87
considerations22 for students who are extremely nervous and cannot present to a class.
However, the small sample of students in this study suggests that for many, whether they
like it or not, presenting an oral presentation is part of subject requirements and therefore
something that they ‘get through’. How students approach such tasks depends on what
instruction or ‘advice’ they have received in relation to both preparation and delivery.
Again, issues of subjectivity were raised in relation to how students are ‘taught’ to orally
present a message as becomes apparent in the next section.
6.6 What do students believe could be done to make such task more effective?
Students were asked to put themselves in the shoes of the teacher and identify any ways
that prepared oral presentations for assessment could be approached differently. In other
words, what could be done to make such tasks easier for students? Suggestions were
varied and included some reference to personal experiences, as when Andrew stated that
he would tell them that:
If they can memorise it, then that’s guaranteed A+ in that category. It doesn’t matter if
it’s stuttery (sic) as long as you can memorise it then you’ve got the A+, if you don’t
have to rely on your notes at all.
The first part of this answer is what Andrew believed his teacher had told him about a
previous presentation. Four students suggested more practice or to be given more
opportunities to present. Other comments included making the presentations shorter,
enabling students to present in front of fewer people (the latter was especially seen as a
way of helping students who find such presentations difficult). Regarding providing
additional assistance during the preparation stage, one student suggested including more
speaking exercises in class to help students feel more “comfortable” when presenting in
front of others, while another recommended taking in drafts. One student thought more
information on how to present would be beneficial:
I think if teachers had spent more time telling us how to actually present the oral
because they didn’t really, they just said to talk at a good pace, talk loudly, use
gesture but really didn’t say how to do a lot of it. (Hannah).
22 One teacher I spoke with allowed ‘extremely nervous’ students to present only to her during the lunchtime. Another teacher said she provided a ‘smaller audience of students’ to help alleviate a speaker’s nerves during oral presentations.
88
However, Brock questioned this approach, in particular the benefits of teachers just
talking about oral presentations ahead of time:
Don’t think teachers just talking about the criteria sheet is enough for 20 minutes.
Better to give ten students, two minutes each about their speech. This could include
hearing a bit too, usually draft just read for content. Also, to lessen subjectivity –
more direct criteria sheet.
6.7 Interview data summary
All 12 students were willing to talk about their experiences with prepared oral
presentations for assessment. The interviews lasted between 15 and 40 minutes each,
with Glen (Year 7) being the shortest. Regarding the benefits of this type of assessment,
student comments mirrored the literature in terms of improving confidence of speaking in
front of others and to assist with future study and work options. In the same way, student
approaches to planning were similar to many online and book resources dealing in
matters of speech preparation, in terms of planning, structuring, preparing, and
presenting (Monash University, 2011a). In particular, students in this study suggest they
follow a linear approach to presenting with the overall process broken up into discrete
elements, that is, first a script has to be ‘written’ before it is ‘rehearsed’ or ‘memorised’.
While this part of the analysis has touched on how students interpret comments on
marking rubrics, the next section explores the role of such marking tools in providing for
both instruction and feedback.
89
6.8 Sixty-four marking rubrics
To provide a more complete picture of what students are being asked to do, the collection
of data has also included the analysis of 64 oral presentation marking rubrics. The rubrics
have been sourced from a variety of educational settings including primary and
secondary schools in the state and private sectors, as well as the university sector. The
rubrics were either obtained from the internet or supplied by students or teachers, and
include ten rubrics from the interview subjects. During each interview, students were
asked to comment on specific criteria used to assess a recent in-class oral presentation.
Document analysis offers a more rigorous analysis of the marking rubric and is included
to complement data collected from the interviews (Glesne, 2011).
As mentioned in the section on criterion-referenced assessment, there is an ongoing
debate about the setting out and overall usefulness of rubrics as an examining tool. While
this research adds to the discussion, my aim is to specifically look at the role of the rubric
in the instruction and assessment of oral presentations for students. To do this, I first
provide an overview of the key areas of criteria identified on these rubrics. In keeping with
the general definition supplied by Popham (1997), all 64 rubrics were set out in a grid
format that includes “evaluative criteria, quality definitions, and a scoring strategy” (p. 72).
Levels of achievement are indicated on a sliding scale of either three, four or five bands.
These bands are classified via numerals, letters, single words or short phrases. For
example:
Table 6.3 Ways of defining levels of achievement
41 Advanced Developing Emerging
30 Excellent Very Good Satisfactory Inadequate
18 4 3 2 1
11 Well established
Established Developed Beginning
7 Excellent Good Satisfactory Needs
improvement
20 Advanced Established Developing Beginning Not evident
90
While the progression is always the same (that is from high achievement to low
achievement with varying degrees in between) the order may run from left to right or right
to left.
6.9 What is being assessed?
Table 6.4 identifies the key areas assessed on each rubric. They are often listed under
the word ‘criteria’ but can also be found under ‘category’ ‘area’ or ‘elements’. This study
supports Burton’s (2007b) observation that “[t]he divide between form and content is
always an artificial and conditional one” (para. 5). However, for the purposes of rubric
analysis, ‘content’ and ‘delivery’ are dealt with individually. This presents challenges.
While each rubric lists separate criteria, the scope of what is actually included in relation
to some criteria is immense. For example, Rubric 1723 lists under ‘oral skills’ reference to
‘palm cards, eye contact, gestures, clarity of voice, volume, and intonation’. To assist in
this investigation, I have extended ‘content’ to include ‘preparation’. However, there are
still obvious limitations in trying to categorically divide criteria into preparation/content and
delivery. For example ‘uses complete sentences’, which is the third criterion on Rubric 1,
could be part of the preparation stage when sentences are being crafted; or during actual
delivery. (In addition, the word ‘sentence’ is problematic, for it appears to describe written
communication rather than oral communication). Timing and audience engagement are
also awkward. For this part of the analysis, timing is included under preparation; whereas
audience engagement is considered part of delivery when connected to answering
questions from those listening.
While acknowledging the somewhat arbitrary nature of this breakdown, this type of
division draws attention to what is actually being marked at the point of utterance. Criteria
seen to be part of the ‘delivery’ stage are bolded:
Table 6.4 Criteria listed on each rubric
Rubric Criteria
1 Preparedness Speaks clearly Uses complete sentences Stays on topic Content Comprehension (answering questions)
23 All 64 rubrics analysed in this study are included as a separate document.
91
Listens to other presentations
2 Articulation, Pronunciation, Pace Preparedness Volume Posture and eye contact Enthusiasm and expression Content and appropriateness
3 Contextual factors (subject matter) Body language Voice quality Audience (connection/engagement) *Above criteria further split into knowledge and processes with the first one being part of knowledge and the final three - processes
Refer Appendix F for additional examples, p. 168
This breakdown provides preliminary data on what are seen as important components of
any oral presentation; in particular it highlights the immense variety of terms that are
used. While recognising the limitations of trying to separate content from delivery, a
further breakdown is submitted specifically detailing how speaking or voice terms are
represented on each rubric. The reason for this is to examine what specific speaking
traits are privileged, as well as how such terms are grouped. (For this section 40 rubrics
have been selected from the 64 collected, representing those used by Australian schools
and universities):
Table 6.5: How speaking/voice terms are represented on criteria sheets
Rubric Speaking/voice criteria What it deals with
1 Speaking clearly Clarity of speech as indicated by a percentage, and pronunciation
2 Articulation, pronunciation, pace (pace mentioned as part of criteria, but not in actual levels of proficiency) Volume
Clarity of speech as indicated by a percentage, and pronunciation How loud or soft
3 Voice quality Deals with volume, intonation, fluency, expression, clarity and projection
Refer Appendix F for additional examples, p. 178
92
From this, the following table provides a comprehensive list of all speaking traits identified
on the collected rubrics. The accompanying number indicates how many rubrics include
this particular feature or a variation thereof. For example, rubrics 16, 18, 37 and 52 do not
specifically mention ‘volume’ but do refer to all audience members being able to hear the
presentation. Rubric 39 lists ‘clear and concise expression’ which is listed here under
both clarity and expression; while Rubric 56 includes ‘tempo’ and ‘volume’ within
expression. For the purposes of this analysis, tempo is included under pace.
Furthermore, Rubric 36 mentions ‘vocal style’ but does not stipulate what this covers.
Table 6.6: Ranking of specific speaking traits acro ss collected rubrics
Speaking trait Number of rubrics speaking trait is mentioned
Volume 34
Speaking
clearly/clarity
32 (Also referred to as enunciation in the bands on rubrics 11 and 12)
Pace 27
Pronunciation 24
Pause 14
Pitch 13
Expression 11
Audibility 11
Fluency/Fluently/Fluid 10
Tone 7
Articulation 6
Intonation 6
Stress 4 (Also referred to as vocal emphasis in the bands on rubrics 11 and 12)
Projection 3
Inflection 3
Phrasing 2
93
Enunciation 2
Rhythm 1
The four most mentioned speaking traits are volume, speaking clearly/clarity, pace and
pronunciation. These were either identified as a separate criterion or grouped with other
speaking traits. With the latter, these terms were either listed as part of the criterion, as
with Rubric 26:
Criteria Highly effective
Quite effective
Reasonably effective
Only partly
effective
Mainly ineffective
Use of Voice (pace, rhythm, use of pauses, pronunciation, volume, intonation)
Or within the individual bands used to indicate the level of proficiency, as with Rubric 20:
Criteria Not evident Beginning Developing Established Advanced
Voice Struggles to speak, speech is very unclear
Consistently uses a monotone voice
Displays some level of inflection throughout delivery
Satisfactory use of inflection, but does not consistently use fluid speech
Use of fluid speech and inflection. Maintains the interest of the audience.
Whether as part of the actual stated criterion or listed within bands, there is a lot of variety
in terms of actually grouping speaking traits, for example:
94
Table 6.7: How speaking traits are grouped on indiv idual rubrics Rubric How speaking traits are grouped either
within one criteria or within bands
2 Articulation, pronunciation, pace
3 Volume, intonation, fluency, expression, clarity, projection
5 Pitch, volume, projection, pronunciation/enunciation, fluency
6 Student speaks fluently and expressively. Pitch is variety to improve
meaning and/or dramatic impact
7 Expression, volume, timing/pace
10 Pitch, stress, pace, pause, pronunciation
11 Pitch, clarity, stress, pace, pause
16 Student’s voice is low, with some incorrect pronunciations.
17 Clear, loud voice, intonation
18 Student uses a clear voice, correct, precise pronunciation of terms so
that all members can hear presentation.
23 Outstandingly appropriate use of voice – pronunciation, audibility, clarity,
volume, pace, tone, pause
30 Volume and clarity, expression pitch/intonation, pacing and pausing,
32 Audibility, clarity, fluency, intonation (pace, pitch, pause, stress)
33 Clarity/audibility, pace and pause, expressiveness, fluency
35 Clarity of diction, audibility, pace/intonation
One of the perceived benefits of the marking rubric is the ability to include conditions
reflective of the particular type of assessment. As Jonsson and Svingby (2007) state, they
enable “valid judgements of complex competencies” (p. 130). With the above table, it can
be assumed that these particular traits were identified as a way of promoting, developing,
and/or evaluating specific speaking skills and that is why they have been singled out.
Alternatively, it could be assumed that the overall aim is for students to speak loud
enough for everyone to hear and in an interesting manner, and, therefore, any inclusion
of specific traits is as a guide only. For example, Rubric 28 groups “intonation, volume,
pace and tone” whereas Rubric 10 refers to “pitch, stress, pace, pause, pronunciation”.
Whether each speaking trait is specifically evaluated at the time of delivery is in question
here. Rubric 41 provides a more open-ended consideration of what is meant by ‘effective
95
delivery’ with the inclusion of the vague word ‘etc.’ as with “posture, eye contact, smooth
gestures, facial expression, volume, pace, etc.”
6.9.1 Levels of proficiency – the language of rubri cs
The concern with this more general approach becomes apparent when examining the
sliding scale of proficiency on each rubric; in particular, how ‘levels of competency’ are
addressed in relation to speaking traits. This is where Cooper’s (2005) concern of
‘subjectivity’ as evidenced by problematic language is apparent. It also highlights the
difficulty in assessing non-quantifiable criteria on a sliding scale. In assisting educators in
the design and construction of rubrics, a frequent internet example involves the
evaluation of a chocolate chip cookie. There are five criteria listed and four levels of
proficiency. The first criterion is ‘number of chocolate chips’ and is displayed as follows:
Criteria Delicious Good Needs Poor
Number of chocolate chips
Chocolate chip in every bite
Chips in about 75% of bites
Chocolate in 50% of bites
Too few or too many chips
www.decs.sa.gov.au/curric/files/links/The_basics_in_creating_rub.doc
This example provides a general understanding of how rubrics work by addressing issues
of perceived quality, that is the more chocolate chips the more ‘delicious’ the biscuit.
However, it is soon apparent that overall wording is not as easy when ‘chocolate chip
cookies’ is replaced with ‘student presentations’. In keeping with the above example, and
to address the problematic issue of language used on criteria sheets, the following table
looks at attempts made to ‘quantify’ specific criteria on some of the collected rubrics:
Table 6.8: Comments from marking rubrics using quan tifiable language
Rubric From ‘A’ band (unless indicated)
1 Speaks clearly and distinctly all (100-95%) the time, and mispronounces no words Always (99-100% of time) speaks in complete sentences Stays on topic all (100%) of the time
2, 13 Speaks clearly and distinctly all (100-95%) the time, and mispronounces no words
15 (From ‘B’ band) Uses vocabulary appropriate for the audience. Includes 1-2 words that might be new to most of the audience but does not define them
Refer appendix F for additional examples, p. 180
96
A more common approach to using language as a way of discerning different levels of
ability is provided in this table, with the inclusion of adverbs, adjectives and qualifying
statements:
Table 6.9: Use of adjectives, adverbs and qualifyin g statements on rubrics
Rubric A B C D
1 Completely prepared Always (99-100% of time) speaks in complete sentences
Pretty prepared Mostly (80-98%) speaks in complete sentences
Somewhat prepared Sometimes (70-80%) speaks in complete sentences
Does not seem at all prepared Rarely speaks in complete sentences
2 Facial expressions and body language generate a strong interest and enthusiasm about the topic in others
Facial expressions and body language sometimes generate a strong interest and enthusiasm about the topic in others
Facial expressions and body language are used to try to generate enthusiasm but seemed somewhat faked
Very little use of facial expressions or body language did not generate much interest in topic being presented
Refer appendix F for additional examples, p. 181
One way of indicating degrees of proficiency is the changing or removing of adverbs and
adjectives within each band:
Table 6.10: Use of adverbs and adjectives on rubric s Rubric 4 3 2 1
1 Completely Pretty Somewhat
3 Insightful use Effective use Use of
12 Consistently Mostly Sometimes
23 Outstandingly Highly Reasonable Limited
Of the 25 criteria sheet examples examined for use of adverbs, adjectives, and qualifying
statements, the most frequently used qualifier is ‘some’ or ‘sometimes’. Either word is
used 24 times, as with:
97
• Sometimes (70-80%) speaks in compete sentences (Rubric 1)
• Sometimes uses clear enunciation (Rubric 12)
• Sometimes stands up straight and establishes eye contact (Rubric 15)
• Displays some level of inflection throughout the delivery (Rubric 20)
Another way of discerning levels is by including more than one thought in a comment.
This is usually achieved through the use of ‘either/or’ or ‘but’ as with:
• Student answers all questions and appears at ease, but fails to elaborate with
explanations (Rubric 16).
• Facial expressions and body language used to generate enthusiasm but
seemed somewhat faked (Rubric 2).
• Speaks clearly and distinctly all (100-95%) the time, but mispronounces one
word (Rubric 1).
• Pitch was rarely used or the emotion it conveyed did not fit the content
(Rubric 21).
And still a further way of specifically adjusting comments relating to speaking traits is
through the removal of certain traits from particular bands, for example:
• With Rubric 3, ‘projection’ is only mentioned in Band ‘A’, not ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ or ‘E’.
• With Rubric 4, ‘voice projection’ is only mentioned in Bands ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ not
‘D’ or ‘E’.
As previously identified, a specific difficulty in relation to developing marking rubrics is
how to fill in the middle, one, two, or three bands for particular criteria. The following
example from a Year 9 written science report uses a similar approach to the chocolate
chip cookie rubric:
98
Criteria 4 3 2 1
Data Collection
Data taken several times in a careful, reliable manner.
Data taken twice in a careful, reliable manner.
Data taken once in a careful, reliable manner.
Data not taken carefully OR not taken in a reliable manner.
From Rubistar: http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index. php?ts=1297902239
The difference between each band is quantifiable and can be readily identified by
examining the student’s work. If, as previously stated, rubrics are designed to be both
instructional and evaluative, it is worth considering how particular written comments may
be interpreted by students specifically in relation to the oral component of a presentation.
The following descriptors are from 20 rubrics used within Australian schools and tertiary
institutions and come from across the five possible bands (A-E). Such a large sample is
included to highlight the widespread difficulty in providing clear and constructive
comments on marking rubrics designed for oral presentations. Specific words have been
bolded in an effort to emphasise areas of possible ambiguity for both student and teacher.
In other words, what is meant by the following?
1. Sometimes (70%-80%) speaks in complete sentences (Rubric 1)
2. Student seems pretty prepared but might have needed a couple more
rehearsals (Rubric 2)
3. Presents imaginative use of body position, stance, actions, eye contact
(Rubric 3)
4. Discerning and skilful manipulation of language elements (Band A), rather
than, purposeful and effective use of language elements (Band B), (Rubric
10)
5. Has some balance (in reference to stance) (Rubric 12)
6. Facial expressions and body language are used to try to generate
enthusiasm, but seem somewhat faked (Rubric 13)
7. Students voice is low , with some incorrect pronunciations (Rubric 16)
8. Little evidence of paragraphing used . Little sequencing of ideas (Rubric 17)
99
9. Satisfactory use of inflection, but, does not consistently use fluid speech
(Rubric 20)
10. Pauses were effectively used once to improve meaning and/or dramatic
impact. (Rubric 21)
11. The group often mumbles or cannot be understood and did not generate
much interest in the topic being presented (Rubric 22)
12. Outstandingly appropriate use of voice (Band A) rather than, Highly
appropriate use of voice (Band B) (Rubric 23).
13. Very restricted use of voice, gesture and body lang uage (Rubric 23)
14. Inconsistent posture. Often unclear, monotonous intonation (Rubric 24)
15. Exploiting an extensive range of apt vocabulary (Rubric 25)
16. Usually using a range of spoken/signed and nonverba l features (Rubric
27).
17. Errors tend to destroy communication (Rubric 28)
18. No exploitation of intonation features (Rubric 32)
19. Demonstrates very poor communication skills : audibility, pace/intonation,
gesture/stance, no audience contact, no PowerPoint (Rubric 35)
20. Reasonable attempt to engage the audience, but cons iderable room for
improvement in vocal style, stance, eye contact, gesture and/or audio visual
materials (Rubric 36)
The majority of these comments specifically deal with the moment of utterance or what
has been previously discussed as an aspect of ‘delivery’. Sixty-three out of the 64 rubrics
collected for this study include, in varying degrees, some references to voice or speech24
as part of the marking criteria. This is not a revelation considering the type of
24 Voice refers to all sound-making at the larynx, whether in the context of speech or not. Moaning, laughing, singing, etc. are all vocalizations, but not speech. Infants and animals vocalize (or voice), but don’t speak (Dr. Ingo Titze, personal communication, 2010).
100
assessment. It would be expected that the importance of actually speaking the message
would be central to this type of assessment. However, what is evident is a lack of shared
understanding and consistency in terms of how such comments are interpreted.
6.9.2 Non-verbal considerations
Non-verbal communication is also frequently mentioned on rubrics designed for oral
presentations. For the purposes of this analysis, reference to eye contact is investigated
because it is a common theme on assessment sheets. This specific aspect of non-verbal
communication has a direct link to the three modes of delivery for prepared presentations
– manuscript, memorised and extemporaneous. It is analysed here in relation to overall
delivery. The following table details how eye contact is addressed on the 64 rubrics as
either part of the general criteria or listed within the individual bands. If there is no direct
reference to eye contact, comments relating to ‘reading from notes’ or ‘evidence of
rehearsal’ have been included:
Table 6.11: Reference to eye contact on rubrics Rubric Criteria Comments
1 No reference Preparedness - evidence of rehearsal
2 Posture and eye contact
3 Body language Along with body position, stance and actions is listed eye contact
Refer appendix F for additional examples, p. 185
From these rubrics, eye contact is seen as a very important element of prepared oral
presentations for assessment. It is mentioned, either as part of a specific criterion, or
within the bands displaying levels of proficiency, on 49 of 65 rubrics. In addition, it is often
mentioned in conjunction with the non-verbal aspects of posture/stance. However, it is
also included as part of general speaking traits; for example with Rubric 17, ‘oral skills’
includes reference to palm cards, gestures, volume, intonation and eye contact. Levels of
achievement in this area are best summarised by looking at the highest and lowest
bands. Again, this includes reference to use of, or reliance on, notes as an indicator or
eye contact:
101
Table 6.12: Highest to lowest levels of proficiency in reference to eye contact Rubric A E (or matching letter, word, phrase,
number) 6 Eye contact… complements
presentation. Rarely uses notes if at all.
Does not make eye contact with the audience
9 Holds attention of the class by maintaining eye contact
Has difficulty maintaining eye contact
24 Maintains very consistent eye contact with audience
Very little or no eye contact. Reads from notes.
32 Establishes and maintains contact with entire audience
Neither established nor maintains contact.
While ‘maintaining eye contact’ or ‘consistently using eye contact’ cannot be interpreted
as ‘never looking at notes’ a number of comments in the higher levels of proficiency refer
to the preference of using notes sparingly:
• Minimal use of palm cards/notes (Rubric 35)
• Excellent use of palm cards as reference only (Rubric 20)
• Rarely uses notes if at all (Rubric 6)
• Seldom referring to notes (Rubric 16)
Rubric 19 is the only one that privileges memorisation in that this mode of delivery is seen
to allow ‘excellent eye contact’ with no need for notes. However, Rubric 20 provides an
opposite view in that “no notes” means “no planning” but still, somewhat confusingly,
contributes to “no eye contact”. The importance of eye contact is regularly cited in the
literature dealing with effective speaking in front of others. Reading from a prepared script
is not favoured as this is seen to distance speaker from audience. Rubrics analysed for
this study support this view through repeated attention to eye contact. While ‘reading’
from a prepared script is not encouraged, it is interesting to note that language used on
some marking rubrics is more akin to written rather than oral communication, as found on
the following:
102
Table 6.13: Language reflecting written rather than oral considerations Rubric From ‘A’ band unless indicated
16 (From ‘C’ band) Presentation has three errors: spelling and/or grammatical
17 Paragraphs consistently organised in a logical sequence with information organised throughout.
18 (From ‘B’ band) Presentation has no more than two misspellings and/or grammatical errors
Refer appendix F for additional examples, p. 187
6.9.3 Audience engagement
To conclude this section, consideration is given to ‘audience engagement’ or ‘audience
connection’ – a central feature of the rhetorical approach. With the accumulated rubrics,
this association is either identified as part of specific criteria as via the following
examples:
Table 6.14: Audience engagement as part of a specif ic criterion Rubric Criteria Comment
6 Introduction Effective introduction that states topic and provides brief overview; captures the attention of the audience.
7 Plan and execute graphic organiser
Very high level ability to make and display images, considering purposes and audience.
10 Contextual Features Purpose Audience Subject matter
Comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the purpose, audience and subject matter.
14 Presentation No use of visual aids and did not keep audience interested
16 Organisation Student presents information in a logical sequence which the audience can follow throughout.
Alternatively, the need to ‘hold’ or ‘maintain’ the attention of the audience is also
specifically addressed as a central criteria:
Table 6.15: Audience engagement as a specific crite rion Rubric Criteria Comment
3 Audience Communicates effectively and makes connections with audience considering
• Engagement • Audience interaction (Band ‘A’)
103
5 Audience Holds attention
Done well to Needs improvement
8 Audience engagement (At expected level) Presentation is confidently executed. Audience engaged at most times
11 Effect on audience (Established) Mostly displayed impact, attention and contact
26 Roles and relationships (understanding of the speaker’s role and the nature of the audience)
Highly effective to mainly ineffective
30 Interest level Maintains listeners’ attention Engages audience
(A band) Maintains audience attention throughout)
6.10 Rubrics summary
As an assessment tool, rubrics receive mixed reviews in the literature. Advocates state
they are a reliable and transparent way of evaluating students’ work. In terms of providing
feedback, they are seen to go beyond mere letter grades. Indeed, the overall layout of the
rubric is impressive in terms of how much information can be contained on one, usually
A4, sheet of paper. However, on further inspection, the usefulness and effectiveness of
rubrics, especially in the area of prepared oral presentations for assessment, is
questionable. The analysis of 64 rubrics has uncovered a number of discrepancies in
terms of language used to describe sliding scales of proficiency as well the overall
usefulness of separating desirable speaking traits into discrete boxes. The perceived
need to fill in every box on a marking rubric leads to levels of ambiguity in what is actually
written. In addition, the wording of some comments can reach absurd levels and does
little to encourage or promote long-term oral communication skills. This is not to suggest
that they will be, or even should be, abolished. Rather, the research highlights the need to
cast a critical eye over the language of marking rubrics and if they are in fact aligned with,
or contradict from, other messages given about presenting orally.
6.11 Findings conclusion
The analysis of the interview data and 64 rubrics uncovered many references to speaker,
audience and message. The rhetorical triangle, based on Aristotle’s three proofs of
persuasive speaking, highlights the importance of ‘balancing’ these three elements.
However, what this analysis uncovered was a lack of connection between speaker,
audience and message during the preparation stage and at the point of delivery. Rather,
each element was more readily viewed in isolation. This was particularly evident when
students discussed how they prepared to present. A common three-step approach was
104
identified (plan, write, memorise/rehearse); with each step discussed in a discrete
manner. This more segregated approach was also apparent in the actual layout of each
marking rubric, with specific criteria contained within individual boxes. Both sets of data
suggest a prescriptive approach to teaching, preparing, and evaluating oral presentations
for assessment.
The term ‘prescriptive’ has also been leveled at the teaching methods of ancient
rhetoricians. For example, students in Aristotle and Cicero’s time were often encouraged
to imitate the work of others. However early tuition also involved practising the art of
oratory on a regular basis. Both approaches recognised the oral delivery of a message. In
addition, while at first glance the Classical Canons may appear to suggest a linear
progression to constructing and delivering messages, closer inspection reveals the
necessary interplay between the five elements. The fifth canon, delivery, continues to be
problematic. The findings of this study suggest that delivery is either viewed in a
prescriptive or overly general manner. To the first, instruction and feedback mechanisms
centre on more quantifiable ideas such as ‘counting ums’ or noting the number of times a
speaker looks at note cards. Alternatively, a broad sweep of speaking terms is used to
indicate the need for ‘effective speaking’, i.e. pitch, volume, projection,
pronunciation/enunciation, fluency. What is less clear is why these particular traits have
been privileged and how they can be taught, let alone assessed. The need for educators
to highlight specific areas of concern that students need to address is part of the teaching
process, so too is recognising particular areas of improvement or skill. However
‘highlighting’ or ‘recognising’ is different to segregating which runs the risk of taking ideas
out of context. Owing to the immediacy and dynamic nature of presenting orally, a
balanced approach to speaker, audience and message is still a necessary consideration
for both in-class experiences and ongoing skill development. Otherwise, there can be a
mismatch between what students are told and what they actually do. (As when Hannah
identified the importance of using oral language in oral presentations but still produced a
speech more akin to a written essay). The following chapter explores this connection
further in light of my literature review and five research questions.
105
7
DISCUSSION
I think teachers understand the benefits of oral presentations.
Senior English Teacher, personal communication, 2009
7.1 Overview
In assessing the outcomes and significance of this research, the more fundamental
question arises: why study an activity that in reality sees students standing before
classmates for only a few minutes each semester? However, if that was all prepared oral
presentations for assessment involved they would be easy to dismiss. The expectations
surrounding this type of assessment are immense, so, therefore, the ideals and practices
associated with presenting orally are worthy of examination. Rhetoric deals with issues of
language, power, communication, knowledge, and persuasion. This is why rhetoric has
proved a useful tradition in which to base this research, and in particular, its historical,
contemporary, and educational connection to oral communication.
In recognising rhetoric’s strong association with persuasion, this study has supported
McCarthy and Hatcher’s (2002) assertion that all speaking opportunities have persuasive
intentions. That is, in preparing to speak, consideration must be given to those listening
with the onus on the speaker to do everything in his or her power to present an intended
message. This, in turn, will influence what is said, what is not said, how it is ordered, how
it is supported, and how it is delivered. While accepting that there are no fixed meanings
and, therefore, no guarantee that what is actually presented will be understood in the
same manner; the bottom line is the importance placed on enabling the audience to at
least follow a line of thought. This ‘connection to an audience’, and the search for
understanding, is central to an ‘Aristotelian’ approach to speaking in front of others.
Furthermore, consideration of speaker, audience, and message (ethos, pathos and logos)
continues to find favour in modern day teaching about oral presentations whether
explicitly or not. Additionally, more contemporary rhetorical considerations have
expanded the reach of rhetoric to include matters of ‘daily communication’. In relation to
oral presentations for assessment, this expanded view allows for the language of
instruction and feedback to be analysed and challenged.
106
The following discussion brings together the theory and data collected for this study in an
attempt to address the two overarching questions of: What is meant by the term oral in
prepared oral presentations for assessment, and what, if any, is the relationship between
prepared oral presentations for assessment and the development of long-term oral
communication skills? To provide the necessary foundation to do this work, my initial
three research questions are first addressed.
7.2 What are the perceived benefits of students giv ing prepared oral
presentations?
While technological advancements have enabled messages to travel far and wide in an
instant, the ability to engage and interact with others through speech is still highly valued.
From personal to professional considerations, it is seen as a skill or set of skills of
significant importance. As a ‘transferable skill’ oral communication is identified as
essential to “not only the workplace but…life in general” (Transferable Skills Project,
2006). It is for these reasons that pedagogically, the need for students to develop
effective oral communication skills is readily acknowledged in the literature and in the
workplace. The broad view is that such skills will enable students to “lead more fulfilling
and meaningful lives” (Abbott and Godhini, 2001, p. vi).
Likewise, the research outcomes from this study support a link between effective oral
communication and life-long learning. However, my research shows that while oral
communication skills are highly valued (as evidenced by their continual inclusion on lists
of graduate capabilities) less clear is what actually constitutes such skills and how best to
describe and develop them. The inclusion of non-specific terms on such lists leads to very
general descriptors being used to illustrate effective oral communication. This may raise
more questions than provide answers, particularly for students. Generalisations, such as
“say what you want, clearly and persuasively” (Levin and Topping, 2006, p. 1), are linked
to so-called ‘speaking norms’ which are regularly presented as ‘speaking truths’. This
study offers insight into if, and how, these ‘truths’ influence the way oral presentations are
taught and assessed.
Student interviews demonstrate that oral presentations offer a unique and valuable
classroom experience. In addition to a number of skills required in the planning stage,
they provide a chance for students to orally present their reasoning to an audience
(Dance, 2002, p. 356). It is the presence of an audience that makes such opportunities
107
distinctive. This is not privileging oral communication over written, but recognition of the
different dynamic this type of communication affords. We live in community, we are
gregarious by nature and, therefore, face-to-face interaction will always be important. This
understanding also highlights the ongoing relevance of a rhetorical approach to
communication with its focus on a three-way connection between speaker, audience, and
message. In particular, many students in this study recognised the favourable role of an
audience when presenting orally. Apart from degrees of nervousness when speaking in
front of others, being able to 'share' what had been prepared was seen as a positive
extension of this type of assessment. In highlighting the potential of such experiences,
students went beyond the satisfaction of merely knowing that someone else had heard
their presentation, as Lauren suggests, “so that not only are you learning but the class is
learning from what you’ve learnt”. Extending upon this idea, the presence of a ‘live’
audience also enabled students to see “peers from a different perspective” (Caitlin).
While prepared oral presentations for assessment include the need to orally communicate
a message, the long-term benefits of such experiences, in relation to actually developing
effective oral communication practices, is debated in the literature. This research does
not support an all-encompassing approach to oral communication. Certainly, learning how
to create and deliver a purposeful message is worth developing. To suggest, however,
that any chance to speak in front of others will have a flow-on effect in regards to all areas
of oral communication is unsupported by the evidence, and this research. At the same
time, it is unhelpful to put forward an overly restrictive view of what it means to ‘speak
publicly’. Students will have many opportunities to present in front of others in the future,
far beyond fully scripted speeches. In short, while prepared oral presentations cannot be
seen as a panacea for all oral communication needs, they are documented in curriculums
as a viable and relevant way of assisting students to develop a number of key
communication skills (if the number of presentations in a student’s school life is an
indication).
What this study reveals is the enormous expectations accompanying this type of
assessment. Many of these expectations are part of the mythology surrounding the
teaching and learning of oral skills. I have attempted to unpack some of this mythology in
relation to what students are actually doing each time they have to give a prepared oral
presentation for assessment. It is not enough to look at why this type of assessment is
favoured in the classroom, it is also necessary to investigate how such opportunities are
108
realised and to what effect. That is why this study has examined the language of
instruction and feedback to see if overall expectations are, in fact, matching practices.
7.3 What instructions do students receive on how to present ‘orally’ and how are
oral skills assessed at the time of delivery?
School curriculums25 stipulate the general requirements of any oral presentation for
assessment. Individual subjects then provide specific guidelines, often including who the
speaker is meant to be, what the overall purpose of the task is, who the speaker is meant
to be addressing, and what is required in terms of actual content (message).26 The above
information is usually found on task sheets given to students in advance. To meet
assessment requirements, other considerations or conditions are also included on this
task sheet and may include a time limit, availability of a lectern, need for accompanying
visual material, whether or not a draft of the speech is required prior to or following
delivery, as well as whether any speaking notes will be collected on the day of
presentation. For example, Edward’s (Year 9) speech included the following information
on the task sheet:
Length: 3-4 minutes
Oral presentations that are below 2min 24 seconds in length will be penalised one
complete grade.
Transcripts may be either hand-written or typed. Failure to produce a legible
transcript, regardless of the format chosen, will result in a penalty of a part grade.
These task sheets along with marking rubrics are part of the instructional advice on offer
to students regarding oral presentations for assessment. Such thorough guidelines fit with
25 As mentioned, a new national curriculum is in the process of being phased into Australian schools. However, the new curriculum still stipulates the need for oral or spoken assessment items.
26 Taking Hannah’s (Year 12) example, she was asked to “propose a multimedia advertising campaign on an issue of community interest/benefit”. This involved devising both a “print advertisement/poster as well as a 60 second television/online commercial” and then orally presenting her work to the “interest group or body who ha[d] commissioned the campaign”. Hannah chose to present her promotion to the Second Chance Program, a charity organisation for homeless women.
109
the idea that students want to know what is being assessed as well as providing
evaluation parameters for those marking. This approach is also in line with a more
prescriptive view of ancient rhetoric. For example, it is possible to view the Classical
Canons as five discrete elements that promote a linear progression. That is, a speaker
must first collect and arrange information before it can be delivered. In addition, the
appeal to logos could suggest the necessity of gathering suitable material which, by
necessity, would require planning. While this study supports a more connected view of
the Classical Canons, it does not question the essential role of researching, gathering
and arranging material to be presented. What is queried is how such preparation affects
final delivery.
7.3.1 Secondary school and university expectations
At this point, I make the distinction between guidelines given to university students and
those still studying at school. Oral presentations are part of assessment requirements at
both educational levels. As mentioned, university websites frequently list the need for
students to develop effective communication skills. Such skills are seen as important
transferable skills that will have long-term benefits in relation to future work related tasks.
Additionally, university websites also provide information concerning how students can
plan and present an oral task for assessment, usually referring to tutorial presentations. A
common instructional principle on such sites is in relation to being familiar with content
but not overly committed to a script, as when the University of Southern Queensland
(2009) states the following. “The aim is neither to read directly from a written paper nor to
deliver a speech which has been rote learned – both of which tend to produce a talk that
is boring and lifeless” (para 9).
This advice was readily found on university websites but it was not specifically stated in
relation to secondary school students. This is an important distinction. University websites
dealing with assisting students to present orally reflect advice provided in many North
American public speaking books. Such books are regularly used for instructional
purposes in North American university first-year public speaking courses. Pearson, Child
and Kahl (2006) refer to these courses as the “bread and butter of most [North American]
communication departments” (p. 351) and state that such courses cater for close to half a
million students each year. However, even when students are presented with a targeted
subject on speaking in front of others, criticisms concerning what is, or can be, taught in
such courses still prevail. It is in relation to these ‘bread and butter courses’ that Dance
110
(2002) questions a focus on ‘platform skills’ while Hugenberg and Yoda (1994) query
exactly how students are assessed as ‘competent’ in terms of oral presentation skills.
While such courses are not the norm in Australian universities there is some overlap.
Taking just one idea that is found on both Australian university websites and in numerous
North American public speaking books is the preference for ‘notes’ over a full script.
Reasons why notes or key points are encouraged are to assist speakers to ‘connect’ with
the audience and to sound more natural, spontaneous, and conversational. This mode of
delivery is seen to be achievable if the speaker has prepared thoroughly including the
consideration and development of a clear structure. The latter is important for two
reasons, one, to allow the speaker to develop a point; and two, to enable audience
members to follow the intended message. This approach is not favouring an ‘off-the-cuff’
or ‘ad lib’ way of presenting. It is suggesting that in planning any message, consideration
must be given to those listening. In short, such planning cannot be done in isolation.
Being spontaneous, natural or conversational is referring to the particular nuances and
cadences of oral communication; it is not suggesting the absence of preparation.
However, while both ‘preparation’ and ‘spontaneity’ are privileged in this approach, less
obvious is how a speaker can ‘demonstrate planning’ while at the same time, ‘sound
natural’. For example, in promoting a ‘conversational’ approach, university websites
promote the following vague advice via a list of written dot points: “Do not rush. Provide
extra emphasis through intonation”. The reference to ‘vague’ is not in terms of the actual
advice being unclear, but rather how such positive speaking qualities can be achieved.
This particularly relates to matters of language.
Language choices are often cited as an important consideration in being able to develop
intended messages with general advice suggesting the deliberate inclusion of signposts,
transitions, and linking statements. Again, this is seen to assist both speaker and
audience member to stay on track. The bottom line is that when a speaker develops a
point or series of points in such a manner, he or she will be able to ‘work from notes’; that
is, to rely on key headings to provide the necessary prompts. This approach encourages
speakers not to memorise or read but to be so familiar with their message that they are
able to speak it. This is what many refer to as the ‘extemporaneous’ mode of delivery and
it is what fuelled my questions about the comment I once wrote on student feedback
forms, and that began this study: You will make more of a connection with your audience
if you speak your thoughts rather than read your words. But this study has revealed the
111
grey area that exists between a preparation outline (full script) and a speaking outline
(notes) in terms of how students are meant to move from one to the other, especially in
light of strict content requirements and time limits.
University students may receive advice recommending the extemporaneous mode of
delivery (whether or not that exact word is used, the intention is still clear); however
secondary school students interviewed for this study did not refer to this manner of
presenting at all. Rather, they spoke in terms of ‘scripts’ and ‘drafts’ and the need for ‘eye
contact’. The requirement of handing in a draft, ahead of the presentation, begs the
question why a student would change the wording at all at the time of actual delivery?
Preparing and presenting a written script with accompanying visuals can be viewed as
multimodal assessment. It also caters for different student strengths and provides for
large cohorts of students in terms of managing assessment needs. While students in this
study suggested varying degrees of confidence when presenting in front of others, they
all approached the task in a similar fashion. Regarding their most recent classroom oral
presentations for assessment, all 12 students stated that they had written a full script
during the preparation stage. This approach was in keeping with an overall requirement of
handing in a written script before, during or after the presentation.
When asked to consider the language choices they made in preparing for such
presentations, student answers mirrored advice from the literature suggesting that it was
important to “use shorter sentences”, “write simply”, “avoid long, windy sentences”, use
“more conversational language” and “think about pronunciation needs”. However, such
intentional practices were not readily found in the script examples that students were able
to provide at the time of the interviews. For example:
If we do not want the grand symphony that is the legacy of literature to end on such a
solemn note, then we must heed the message of these texts. (Brock)
Although many young boys are sexually exploited, predominately girls aged between
10 and 18 years of age, are more vulnerable to commercial sexual exploitation,
because families in Asian communities often prioritise the education of boys,
heightening the risk of association in prostitution for girls. (Katie)
112
These are complex sentences using prose-like language. They have not been written with
ease of utterance in mind. However, all 12 students in this study suggested that their final
presentations were the same, or at least very similar, to the speech they had written. This
suggests a disjuncture between what they believe they should be doing and what is
actually done and presented.
Even when the submission of a written script is not supposedly an assessment
requirement, this research suggests that a script is still developed. As with the above
examples from Brock and Katie, the following excerpt from a first-year university student’s
oral presentation favours a more formal written style of language:
Thus, these developing nations have been left by their dictators to live under a
shadow of indebtedness they cannot afford, in a system without recourse to a
democratic judicial process, in a poverty trap without end or escape.
Language choices affect delivery choices and outcomes. In this study, the preferred
modes of delivery were read or memorised. This led to consideration of what type of
speaking notes or prompts are promoted to support final delivery.
7.3.2 Speaking notes
While all secondary school students in this study were required to submit a draft of their
speech, when it came to speaking notes used at the time of delivery a number of different
options were cited. This introduces another layer regarding where ‘speaking advice’
originates. This study reveals that such advice often comes from individual teacher
experience or understanding. For example, Appendix H lists 12 comments from first-year
university students regarding the use of notes or note cards when delivering an oral
presentation at secondary school. These examples cover a gamut of possibilities from
having to use palm cards to not being allowed to use them; stipulating word counts on
each card (or at least the necessity of dot points); or acceptance of full scripts being taken
out at the time of delivery. Students in this study were also able to list a number of
different expectations in relation to speaking notes. While some students articulated a
personal preference when it came to support material at the time of delivery – such as
when Brock said he favoured using a full script on a music stand – overall, students were
adaptable to the needs and/or preferences of different teachers/tasks, as when Jenna
said:
113
I feel comfortable with palm cards; sometimes the teacher says there will be a lectern
there so she says that maybe a script would be better in that case.
Such diversity of opinion and practice is also reflected in the literature as evidenced in
Appendix A – speaking notes. In relation to general speaking advice, is such a variety of
ideas necessarily a concern? It is reasonable to suggest that in the secondary school
environment students should be presented with a variety of speaking approaches rather
than any so-called ‘correct’ way. However, when such approaches are as prescriptive as
‘you can only take out 70 words in total’ and ‘you must hold your cards in one hand
because they are not palms cards’ it is worth considering the justification and implications
behind such recommendations. In particular, what is the research concerning ‘effective
communication skills’ that is underpinning such suggestions? Evidence from this study
suggests an individualistic or even ‘ad hoc’ approach to the teaching of oral presentation
skills with little, if any, careful planning and documentation of how such skills are
developed throughout a student’s 12 or 13 years of schooling.
Rigid guidelines concerning ‘size of note cards’ or ‘the number of words on each note
card’, were mirrored in other general presenting advice. For example, in relation to an
appropriate length of time to sustain a pause when delivering a speech, Edward offered
the following thought:
Well, our teacher taught us that the longest you can actually stop for a pause is three
seconds and then it gets kind of awkward. But he definitely wants us to use, probably
even 30 seconds of dramatic pause in a four-minute speech.
Yet at the same time, students are also told to “believe in yourself”, “make it personal”
and “keep [the] audience engaged”. As with many of the speaking maxims mentioned in
Chapter Four, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with any of this information however,
this study is concerned with challenging these ideas in terms of how students can actually
use such advice and, most importantly, how one piece of advice relates to another.
As this study progressed, a number of anomalies surrounding instruction and feedback
practices became apparent. For example, in relation to secondary school expectations,
while there was a propensity for students to write/read or memorise scripts; at the same
114
time students were encouraged to think about matters of voice and speech in relation to
overall delivery. While guidelines concerning matters of voice and speech were provided
through general classroom advice (either face-to-face teaching or the provision of
handouts), the most common avenue for understanding expectations in relation to this
type of assessment came through task sheets and marking rubrics.
7.3.3 The role of rubrics in instructing and assess ing prepared oral
presentations
This study identified numerous references to voice and/or speech on criterion-referenced
assessment sheets for prepared oral presentations. In fact, of the 64 rubrics collected for
this study, 63 referred directly to delivery requirements. In addition, 17 different terms
relating to speech and/or voice were identified. They were volume, clarity, pace,
pronunciation, pause, pitch, expression, fluency, tone, articulation, intonation, stress,
projection, inflection, phrasing, enunciation and rhythm. The first four were the most
mentioned across all the rubrics. This is not surprising in light of Oliver et al’s (2005)
observation that prepared oral presentations can be ‘measured’. These four traits point to
the possibility of a continuum, for volume can be too loud or too soft, speech can be
deemed clear or unclear, pace can be too fast or too slow and pronunciation can be clear
or unintelligible (in terms of a recognised standard).
Analysis also revealed that there was a lot of variety when it came to labelling and
actually grouping voice/speech traits. For example, on one rubric ‘voice quality’ referred
to ‘volume, intonation, fluency, expression, clarity and projection’ while on another
‘spoken language’ included ‘pitch, clarity, stress, pace and pause’. The actual
combination of such traits seems less important than the need to at least include some
acknowledgement of ‘delivery’. While students are encouraged to ‘exploit intonation
features’, ‘demonstrate very effective clarity of diction’ and even ‘speak clearly and
distinctly (100-95%)27 with no mispronunciations’; student responses in this research
suggest that as an instructional tool, rubrics provide very little assistance in describing
how students can achieve a high mark in the area of delivery. For non-quantifiable
27 With a 7-minute presentation, 95% is 6 minutes 39 seconds. Does that mean a student can speak ‘unclearly’ for 21 seconds and still receive the highest grade for this criterion as long as he/she doesn’t mispronounce a word? I realise the absurdity of this idea however, what is gained from including such percentages?
115
criteria, that is traits related to overall delivery, this presents a problem and can lead to
claims of subjectivity or, at the very least, ambiguity.
Apart from reference to voice and speech traits, marking rubrics also stipulated the
importance of non-verbal communication, in particular, the need for eye contact which
was mentioned on 49 of the 64 collected rubrics. The reason eye contact was privileged
related to an overall understanding of, or connection to, an audience as with Rubric 32:
Criteria A B C D E
Non-verbal features - eye contact
Establishes and maintains contact with entire audience
Establishes and maintains contact audience (sic)
Establishes and generally maintains contact
Establishes, but does not maintain contact
Neither establishes nor maintains contact
Rubrics provide a sliding scale of proficiency across a number of designated criteria. In
the quest to ‘fill in the blanks’ there needs to be a way to discriminate or distinguish levels
of achievement. While the absence of a marking rubric has led to concerns of
unsubstantiated results or even “unrecognised prejudices” (Wolf and Stevens, 2007, p.
13) on behalf of markers, their use does not automatically guarantee a shared
understanding of overall requirements. Firstly, in some cases, poorly worded comments
or incorrect definitions can lead to uncertainty, confusion or even inaccurate information.
For example, from Rubric 11, one of the criteria is pitch but the comments across the four
levels of ability relate to volume and projection:
Beginning Developed Established Well Established
Pitch Voice was often difficult to hear
Voice was sometimes difficult to hear
Voice was mostly audible
Voice clearly reaches the audience
Secondly, subjectivity is particularly evident when students and markers are asked to
differentiate between the middle two or three levels of proficiency, especially when
indistinct adjectives or adverbs are used to clarify differences, for example:
116
4 3 2 1
Student is completely prepared and has obviously rehearsed.
Student seems pretty prepared but might have needed a couple more rehearsals.
The student is somewhat prepared, but it is clear that rehearsal was lacking.
Student does not seem at all prepared to present.
From online rubric generator, Rubistar
During the interviews, students had difficulty in differentiating between descriptors such
as ‘pretty prepared’ and ‘somewhat prepared’, particularly in how they could demonstrate
this orally. Finally, and maybe less obviously, overall effective delivery can be
compromised by the breaking up of aspects of delivery into discrete boxes, for example:
A
Preparedness Student is completely prepared. Rarely uses notes if at all.
Voice quality Student speaks fluently and expressively. Pitch is varied to improve meaning and/or dramatic impact.
Rubric 6
What would a student have to do to get a tick in the ‘A’ column for both of these? While
‘rarely uses notes if at all’ is not stipulating memorisation, findings from this study suggest
that students do in fact memorise, or at least attempt to memorise, a prepared script. If
this is the case, how does memorisation influence overall delivery? The following 38-word
sentence is from a first-year university student’s oral presentation. The student presented
without notes, but was able to provide a written copy on request.
And so today I have come to convince you that Victoria Bitter beer ads are
consistently successful because they have created a strong brand image that
includes important elements of the Australian identity that resonates with us all.
In relation to ‘preparedness’, the student had taken time to memorise a written script.
However, the complexity of the sentence structure, coupled with examples of difficult
consonant combinations – Victoria bitter beer ads and consistently successful because –
meant that voice quality (as defined on the rubric 6) was compromised.
117
This last point needs further exploration. Even though the four most common
voice/speaking traits on the collected rubrics were measurable in terms of loud/soft,
clear/unclear, fast/slow, acceptable/unacceptable pronunciation, it is difficult to solely rely
on these four areas when assessing effective delivery. As with the above example,
‘expressive speech’ or speech that makes use of ‘varied pitch’ is encouraged. But how
can students speak ‘expressively’ while at the same time ‘rarely referring to notes’? This
study reveals a student preference for writing and then reading or memorising a script. A
common criticism of reading or memorising scripts is that these two modes do not support
expressive speech. Both approaches often result in speaking too fast or with a limited
range, both of which can lessen emphasis. In addition, the importance of pausing is
overlooked as the speaker rushes through a script that is either written on paper or in the
mind. Any speaking advice must be considered in relation to other recommendations.
There is a contradiction in expecting students to write a script but at the same time use
pauses judiciously. Pauses cannot simply be ‘added’ or ‘counted’ but are a significant part
of meaning-making in terms of listener understanding. Again, without consideration of
what constitutes effective oral communication skills, such advice can be seen as
“superficial” or “naïve” which Eunson (2008) identifies as concerns of quick-fix
approaches to matters of communication.
As a way of extending this research to include what oral presentation skills students bring
into the academy from their school experience, I have included 64 oral presentation
comments that I have written for mainly first year university students (refer appendix G).
Half of these comments made mention of being too reliant on a script or notes; 34
comments referred to speaking too fast and 24 comments suggested that being so
committed to a written script compromised vocal variety. This additional analysis
suggests that, for many students, presenting habits established in the secondary school
continue at the university level, and to their detriment as communicators.
7.4 What is meant by the term oral in prepared oral presentations for assessment?
In line with my central research aim, this study explored the role of prepared oral
presentations for assessment from the student’s perspective. At every stage, the focus
was on the distinctive ‘oral’ nature of this type of communication. This research concludes
that while oral communication is a recognised and valued skill, when it comes to prepared
oral presentations, the actual oral component of this type of assessment is marginalised.
This study suggests that, in general, educators lack understanding of the principles that
118
underpin effective oral communication, and how to impart these to students. This is
evident in overly prescriptive guidelines and compartmentalised marking sheets which
relegate ‘delivery’ to an erroneous use of pitch, pace, pause and volume as well as how
‘word perfect’ a student can be during the eventual presentation.
The study findings indicate that students write and read, or write and memorise their oral
presentations for assessment. Furthermore, this study argues that such an approach
encourages a definite distinction between what is said (content) and how it is said
(delivery). While either ‘reading a script’ or ‘speaking from a memorised script’ involves an
oral component, both are specialised modes of delivery that are suitable for particular
communication exchanges, for example news reading and acting. However, the news
script or play script is written with consideration for the ‘ear’ rather than the ‘eye’, which
requires an understanding of, and greater skill with, oral language. This study concludes
that current pedagogical practices encourage students to orally present a written paper
that has been prepared in written language. This has direct and negative consequences
for overall effectiveness and listener communication. In this section, I re-examine how
students prepare to present. This study supports the essential role of preparation in any
oral presentation for assessment. However, it advocates a renewed approach to such
planning in light of final delivery demands.
7.4.1 The role of written communication in oral pre sentations
The prominent role of written communication in the preparation and delivery of oral
presentations for assessment has, therefore, been a central consideration of this study.
My research does not suggest that oral presentations should be devoid of writing. What it
does question, however, is how students reconcile the privileging of a written script, while
still upholding broad speaking truths that oral communication should be spontaneous and
natural. As previously stated an extemporaneous mode of delivery encourages a speaker
to be ‘conversational’ and ‘engaging’. This approach requires careful forethought with an
emphasis on the need to be audience-centered or audience-focused. It is worth
considering this further rather than allow such an important maxim to ‘go without saying’.
The listener’s ear is attuned to the rhythms of conversational language, so, therefore, it
makes sense to build on this idea when encouraging students to orally present in front of
others. However, the specific demands of a three, five or ten minute oral presentation
require a more enhanced understanding of what it means to be ‘conversational’ in more
formal speaking opportunities. In this sense, ‘conversational’ does not mean speaking
119
‘off-the-cuff’ or being ‘unplanned’. It means using oral language and speech rhythms that
an audience can relate to and follow.
Evidence from this study suggests that the prescriptive advice found on marking rubrics,
works more towards formal written prose, rather than towards conversational oral
language. However, as also evidenced on the rubrics collected for this study, audience
engagement is a consideration of prepared oral presentations for assessment, which
again relates to delivery. A common way of promoting overall engagement is put forward
by Darnley and Martin (2004). “When enthusiasm is natural, not pushed or forced and the
speaker is using breath freely without any postural or tension problems, most aspects that
determine the ‘interesting’ voice take care of themselves” (p. 67). This type of general
advice is often drawn on in relation to both formal and informal speaking opportunities.
However, such advice presents challenges for a speaker who has written a script and
practised it at least ten times before final delivery, as was the average for students in this
study. In short, students are presented with a paradox when oral presentation task
requirements include lines such as:
Although spoken, the news report is to be fully scripted.
Year 7, Brisbane North State School
As mentioned, secondary school students in this study had to submit a draft speech on
which they received written comments. While acknowledging the importance of providing
individual feedback, the submission of a written draft, along with written feedback, does
not connect oral and written communication but rather favours the written word. It also
disconnects content and delivery for silently reading words on a page does not recognise
an oral/aural element. This approach, however, is very similar to Brock’s (Year 12) and
Donna’s (Year 12) understanding of preparing for both content and delivery:
I work on them separately, I concentrate on my content when I’m planning and
writing it and then when I go and practise the speech, I’ve written it and I know it,
then I’ll add things such as facial expressions, pronunciation, hand movements and
stuff like that. I’ll add that in after I’ve written it so I can concentrate on different things
at different times. (Brock)
120
I guess when I’m planning, I just think about what I need to do and what I need to
write. I don’t think about the delivery of it until maybe the final draft. Then I think
about how I’m going to say things. (Donna)
These comments are representative of how other students in this study approach the task
of prepared oral presentations for assessment, that is, they plan, write, learn and present.
The most obvious example of working on ‘delivery’ after a script is written was offered by
Jenna who had been taught a specific technique called ‘sound scripting’. This method
involves using written devices such ellipses, italics and bolding words as a way of
reminding the speaker which word to emphasise or how to say a specific phrase or
sentence. Jenna found the approach useful:
Yeah I think it will be helpful when I’m saying it because it will just remind me I guess.
If I was just reading it, it would be a typical speech which is for us just so boring
because we are just used to standing there and reading and that’s what a majority of
girls do whereas this would probably take them out of their comfort zone and get
them more expressive.
But again, such markings were added after a script was written, which led Jenna to write
and deliver the following line:
Imagine a world where music DOES not exist?
Without an understanding of oral language, including the essential role of stress and
emphasis, the value of such an exercise is questionable. This is very different to
Alexander’s (2000) suggestion that in ancient times, writing “co-existed” with “orality” (p.
168). If the above line was in fact “pronounced” rather than just “perused” the flawed
rhythm would soon become evident. This is in keeping with Manguel’s (1996) suggestion
that speech writers in the Middle Ages, actually “spoke their words out loud” (p. 47) while
composing a speech rather than waiting until a text had actually been written. In this
sense, planning also involves an understanding of how certain sound combinations
actually ‘feel’ in the mouth and ‘sound’ to the ear, rather than just ‘look’ on a page.
From this study, it is apparent that the actual writing of the speech is integral in terms of
both teaching and delivering oral presentations but not in terms of overall effectiveness of
orally communicating a message. Firstly, it plays a fundamental role in how students
121
prepare to present by means of writing notes, drafts and then producing final speeches.
Secondly, the language of instruction28 and feedback is also provided in a written format
through task and criteria sheets (including rubrics) as well as written teacher comments.
This raises another area of tension in that what is written about oral presentations does
not always translate to what can be achieved at the time of delivery. For one thing, the
editing that has occurred on a written (or online) instructional or feedback document
points to an asynchronous means of communication, not possible or desirable when
presenting to a live audience. Such a controlled written text, if thoroughly checked, can be
‘word perfect’. Should the same approach be encouraged with oral presentations? At the
most basic level, should ‘ums’ be counted or overly long pauses seen as evidence of poor
preparation? In dividing content and delivery, the illusion is given that once a message is
written it is simply a matter of memorising or reading it. Therefore, issues relating to voice
and speech are expected to be ‘added’ to a written text but not in a naturalistic,
conversational manner. It is little wonder that students are constantly told to ‘slow down’,
‘speak up,’ or ‘use more vocal variety’ when such a narrow understanding of voice and
speech is applied.
7.4.2 Voice, speech and final delivery
The capacity of voice and speech to convey thought and emotion has been studied
throughout the centuries. Lunceford (2007) states that it is the “oral dimension” (p. 83) of
speech that gives it its power and suggests the ancients were very familiar with this point:
It is clear that Gorgias, Aristotle, Isocrates, Cicero and Quintilian recognised the
power of the spoken word and its importance in persuasive discourse. They
understood that the message could not simply be reduced to propositional content,
but that the hearer was also affected by the way in which it was expressed (2007, p.
98).
Reference to expression suggests an intentional consideration of both voice and speech
in conveying meaning during a public address. This again highlights the necessity of
choosing language that appropriately conveys the desired content of a message to those
listening. This requires consideration of the differences between written and spoken
discourse, for as Aristotle (trans. 2007) states, “some written works seem thin when
28 In explaining how she was taught the technique of sound scripting, Jenna referred to a teacher handout detailing what to do.
122
spoken, while some speeches of orators seem amateurish when examined in written
form” (3.12.2). Furthermore, Aristotle (trans. 2007) goes on to suggest that use of
favoured oral language devices such as repetition and asyndeton, may in fact appear
“silly” when delivery is absent. His point is that when such devices are not actually heard,
their purpose is not fulfilled.
A more linear approach to preparing for an oral presentation places matters of voice and
speech at the final stage of the planning process with the rehearsal of a written script.
Indeed, this was the case for all 12 students in this study. Casaregola (1992) states that
such a “linear progression” (p. 8) can overlook important connections. To make his point
he again turns to Greek and Roman rhetoricians, and in particular, the Classical Canons.
Casaregola (1992) proposes that rather than being five “separate steps” orators of old
“may have experienced them as interactive” (p. 8). That is, instead of representing an
orderly progression of thinking, writing, memorising, and delivering, Casaregola (1992)
suggests that these “activities” could have “co-exist[ed] at the same time” (p. 8).
Therefore, oral presentations necessitate content familiarity as well as active
consideration of audience in both planning and delivery. In particular, they require the skill
of crafting oral language for oral presentation to an audience.
While current practice suggests that students follow a more linear approach to the
preparation of oral presentations for assessment, at the same time, mythology
surrounding this type of communication supports a more interactive method as well. In
relation to speaking notes, Glen was told that he “was not dot-point enough” implying that
eye contact and/or not being reliant on a detailed script are important considerations for
this type of speaking task. How was Glen encouraged to prepare a message that could
be reduced to dot points? Again, this suggests an absence in terms of how students are
taught to present as well as a degree of ambiguity in relation to how such tasks are
initially set up. For example, how do students reconcile the need to “practice, practice,
practice” while at the same time use notes rather than a script in order to “actively think
about what they are saying” at the time of final delivery? (Flaxman, 2008, p. 2).
In discovering that 63 out of the 64 collected rubrics made some reference to voice or
speech, this study argues that ‘delivery’ is still an essential consideration of
communicating orally. However, the following comment from Brock suggests that, at
times, this might not always be the case:
123
When we were just about to present, the teacher said she would just be marking
what we say not how we say it. I wish we’d been told that before.
This comment privileges content over delivery, however, the criteria sheet used to assess
this presentation includes reference to pronunciation, phrasing and pausing for emphasis,
audibility and clarity, volume, pace, facial expressions, gestures, proximity, stance and
movement. There was some discrepancy amongst students in this study in relation to the
overall weighting of content and delivery. Six students suggested both areas were a
consideration in final evaluation; three stated that teachers favoured delivery while two
said it was content. The final student said it depended on individual teacher preferences.
However, while content requirements may be easier to define, although often overloaded
in terms of how much can actually be included in a three, five or ten minute presentation;
delivery requirements are open to more interpretation. For instance, the difference
between an affected and unaffected presentation is very much in the eye, or ear, of the
beholder or marker. It may well be that to meet large class assessment requirements
giving a ‘performance’ is a more appropriate word to use rather than ‘presentation’.
(Interviewed students suggested that this type of assessment is ‘easier’ for those with
some experience in the dramatic arts.) Nevertheless, if prepared oral presentations are
seen to contribute to life-long oral communication skills, then those implementing and
marking them need to be very clear about how such skills are developed, and taught. In
addition, there must be consideration of the students’ perspective and how students can
learn to ‘engage’ an audience while still meeting a number of criteria listed on the final
marking rubric. In other words, what is meant by the term ‘oral’ must be understood by
both student and teacher alike.
7.5 What is the relationship between prepared oral presentations for assessment
and the development of effective oral communication skills?
As has been reiterated many times in this study, the importance placed on being able to
deliver an oral message is not just contained to school or university but has life-long
implications. This points to a basic recognition that being able to ‘express one’s ideas’ or
‘speak one’s thoughts’ is an important skill that will help students to “move through life
with self-confidence” (Young and Travis, 2004) and, to become “co-creators of the world”
(Manuel, 2004 p. 7). While such broad ideals are difficult to refute, this research has been
124
more interested in how students are equipped to be able to confidently express their
ideas in specific oral presentation contexts. In particular, if and how prepared oral
presentations for assessment contribute to the development of such highly valued skills.
This study has involved investigating an extremely diverse range of resources in terms of
how students are taught to give prepared oral presentations for assessment. The breadth
of material studied has gone beyond secondary school/university curriculums, or highly
regarded communication journals. My literature review also canvassed online university
oral presentation guidelines and general ‘public speaking’ books generated from
numerous North American higher education institutions. The inclusion of this more
general material was intentional. My topic, although situated in secondary schools with
some overlap in the academy, has broad appeal. Speaking in front of others, often
referred to as public speaking, is of interest and significance to many and it is a topic that
brings with it numerous opinions and experiences. In relation to prepared oral
presentations in the classroom, while some writers question the long-term benefits of
such formal speaking tasks, current practices suggest a general assumption, that, in
some way, these opportunities are helping to develop effective oral communication skills.
This was not only frequently mentioned in the literature but was reinforced by those
interviewed. In relation to the overall benefits of in-class presentations, all students stated
future work, study, or general life expectations.
While more formal oral tasks are a recognised assessment item in secondary schools,
how teachers develop the skills associated with oral presentation is not stipulated in the
curriculum. Abbott and Godinho’s (2001) assertion that an “overcrowded curriculum” (p.
vi) has led to a favouring of “the written mode” (p. vi) is still a very valid consideration.
This extends to matters of instruction. This study has revealed that ‘speaking advice’ is
often presented in a written format (through task sheets and marking rubrics) as well as
books,29 online resources as well as teacher understanding or preferences but is not
29 There is an irony in the many written speech examples provided in numerous resource material on effective speaking in front of others, especially when accompanying guidelines stipulate that students should not ‘read’ from scripts.
125
actually taught. Furthermore, it is unclear where teachers are drawing information on how
to teach oral presentation skills, and what part, if any, actual instruction of students is
occurring.
While there is an overabundance of written material on offer relating to speaking in front
of others, it has also become evident that to cope with such a welter of information,
summaries are often made. As previously mentioned, the concern with diluting messages
to simple explanations means broader considerations are overlooked. Such basic tenets
have also uncovered a number of perceived tensions, such as what is meant by the
opposing terms: effective/ineffective, appropriate/inappropriate and excellent/poor. This
study has also revealed a similar either/or approach between content/delivery,
written/spoken and even speaker/audience. Separating these concepts, or even
pretending that they can be dealt with individually, can lead to uncertainty. This is also the
case when specific presenting guidelines actually contradict bigger picture
communication ideals.
The epigraph at the beginning of this chapter suggests a common understanding, among
English teachers at least, as to why prepared oral presentations are part of the
curriculum; however, this research questions this simple assertion of blanket shared
understandings. How students deliver a prepared oral presentation depends on what
instruction they have received and how the final presentation will be assessed. Current
practice indicates a disconnection between what is possible and what is advised in terms
of preparing, presenting, and assessing. This study acknowledges that prepared oral
presentations for assessment cannot be seen a ‘cure-all’ in relation to developing
effective oral communication skills, but it also concludes that more could be made of this
experience. It questions the present-day fixation on singling out and measuring individual
speaking traits and suggests that such an approach places unrealistic pressure on the
speaker at the expense of the four other essential elements of oral communication –
context, purpose, message, and audience.
In particular, this study concludes that while assessment matters will always be a
consideration of such oral tasks, the approach of rigidly segregating content and delivery
has placed undue emphasis on the ‘performance’ aspect of such presentations. This
summation is in line with Dance’s (2002) assertion that developing long-term
communication skills takes time and cannot be reduced to overly simple or segmented
126
assessment concerns. Furthermore, developing skills in this area does not occur simply
because one lesson is presented on the matter, or even less, because there is repeated
opportunity to present in the same manner. In fact, as the QUT Strategic Speech
Communication Student Guide (2011) suggests, such opportunities may simply reinforce
unhelpful behavior. “There is a common saying that practice makes perfect. That is often
true, but what if your practices themselves are not perfect? Sometimes, practice simply
develops bad habits” (p. 22). One way of addressing these concerns is to return to a
revised view of the rhetorical tradition and what it offers current teaching and learning in
this area.
7.6 Conclusion
We must not cease from exploration. And the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
T S Elliott
The person who can ‘string a few words together’ or ‘captivate a crowd’ or even ‘have the
audience eating out of the palm of their hand’ is seen as accomplished and professional.
The perceived power of an eloquent speaker has been noted throughout the centuries
from Aristotle and Cicero to Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and Barack Obama.
And this has brought with it a need to understand how to achieve the knowledge and
skills to speak in this manner. Therefore, scholarship surrounding oral communication has
a rich heritage. Rather than being overwhelmed with all that is on offer, this study
recommends reconnecting with some of this research. Throughout this study, I have
identified a cursory link to rhetoric in current practices of oral presentation assessment; a
deeper understanding of this tradition would enhance the pedagogical approach to
developing and assessing oral communication skills in the education curriculum. Such an
approach would highlight the important role of oral communication as part of life-long
learning. Taking on board Richard’s (2008) caution about ‘idealising’ ancient practices, a
renewed understanding of rhetoric, and how to best impart this knowledge to students,
would highlight the importance for all students to become confident, articulate,
expressive, and discerning communicators within a range of contexts. Practically, it would
revive the essential role of audience:
Message Context
Audience
Speaker Purpose
127
Such an approach need not conflict with matters of assessment. It would, however, move
the oral component of this type of task from the final stage of preparation (as something
that can be added) to initial consideration at the planning stage. In this sense, a
supporting script would be built up from oral deliberation and planning, rather than oral
‘embellishments’ being added as surface decoration. It would also assist students to be
critical users of rhetoric. First, it would encourage speakers to make oral language
choices. Second, it would reclaim and reinforce the essential role of audience in any
speaking exchange. In terms of ‘transferable skills’ it is the combined consideration of
message, context, purpose, speaker, and audience that can overlap many different types
of oral communication as distinct from written communication. This includes asking
questions such as who is speaking to whom and why?
This would also affect instruction and feedback comments from teachers or tutors. For
one, it would mean taking a closer look at what students are being asked to do each time
they present, from early primary school through to senior secondary school. In particular it
would look at the inconsistency between much general speaking advice and actual
speaking opportunities. Students would no longer be told to keep their presentations;
‘clear, concise and conversational’ while at the same time being expected to present a full
marketing plan and advertising campaign in ten minutes. (This would require a clearer
understanding of what terms such as ‘conversational’ mean in relation to prepared
speaking opportunities). Furthermore, comments that are usually given at the end of a
presentation would be considered during the preparation stage. For example, how are
students encouraged to speak at a meaningful pace? What does this mean for language
choices? How will the speaker connect with both the message and the audience? What is
achievable in terms of number of points in the time available to present? These more
open-ended questions are in contrast to the ever-present dot points that are limited in
their instructional content such as the following online advice from Monash University.
“Remember, the purpose of oral presentations is to communicate a topic as interestingly
and succinctly as possible, so be expressive and concise” (2011b, para 5).
Evidence from this study warrants a review of current practices in the area of oral
presentations for assessment at both the secondary school and university levels. In
particular, it recommends looking at the relationship between standard presenting advice
and methods of evaluating final delivery. In particular, the language of criteria sheets
need to be addressed especially in relation to the terms used to describe and evaluate
128
elements of voice and speech. In relation to the actual oral presentation feedback that
students in this study received, the most mentioned areas had to do with final delivery –
pace, eye contact, keeping to a time limit, volume, clarity, vocal variety, gesture,
stumbling or hesitancy, posture. However, what this study also reveals is that the
assessment of such presentations in the secondary school may not only take place at the
so-called platform stage of delivery, but also in the weeks prior, or even after, through a
written draft of the speech. This raises a very important point of whether or not oral
presentations for assessment in the secondary school environment are actually marked
twice? If so, then the performance aspect of oral presentations for assessment needs to
be more formally acknowledged and criteria sheets need to reflect this in terms of the
ability to memorise or read a written script. However, if such presentations are to be
factored into developing broader oral communication skills, then this too needs to be
recognised. This would require rethinking dividing oral presentations into the distinct
aspects of content and delivery especially if the first relates to writing an essay and the
second to reading or reciting it. This would also challenge the notion of needing to be
‘word perfect’ while at the same time ‘engaging’.
The dual role that criterion-referenced assessment sheets play, in terms of being both a
tool of instruction and assessment, needs to be challenged. In particular, this study
questions how such tools contribute to a student’s understanding of how to present in a
confident, articulate manner. In their present format, each stated criteria is read across
the page as a way of identifying varying levels of ability in one particular area. In some
instances, delivery is treated as one single criterion, while in others, specific speaking
traits are identified and isolated. In either format, these traits are separated from other
considerations, such as content, arrangement and visuals. Students require, and should
receive, constructive feedback about their oral presentations. However the approach of
singling out individual speaking traits negates the overall dynamics of oral communication
that should make it impossible to divide essential elements into discrete boxes. In fact,
putting lines around specific criteria, again, suggests a linear method of preparing to
present that is more akin to written communication rather than oral.
What this study has identified is the problem of removing words or concepts such as ‘eye
contact’, ‘audience contact’ and ‘use of pause’ from their background knowledge or
context. This means that the ‘evidence’ given on the rubrics is grossly inadequate to
support a satisfactory outcome for students. In addition, in terms of the delivery aspect
129
included on such marking sheets, there is very little variation in what is offered students in
secondary school and university. The emphasis is on volume, clarity, pace and
pronunciation. However, little, if any, consideration is given to how these desired
speaking traits can actually be achieved and how they relate to other criteria used to mark
oral presentations. Most importantly, in their present format, comments included under
delivery on criterion-referenced assessment sheets can actually counteract desired long-
term speaking traits that would enable students to become active and expressive
communicators in life and the work place. An unwarranted emphasis on being ‘word
perfect’ coupled with a need to fit speaking traits along a subjective continuum (of
excellent to poor) has meant the performance aspect of such presentations has been
given priority but without the essential preparatory planning and instruction for real
understandings to grow.
Referring to the development of oral presentation skills in the university sector, Murphy
(1996) states:
Each individual teacher has an individual approach. Some teachers make a
conscious effort to deliberately build the teaching and assessment of skills into the
curriculum; other rely on skills development taking place more by chance. (p.2)
Fifteen years on, my research supports this comment, in particular the notion that such
important communication skills are happening “by chance”. However, simply stating that
teachers need to do more, or conform to a set standard of guidelines is unhelpful. For
one, Petelin’s (2009) warning that “writing cannot be reduced to inflexible formats,
mechanical formulas and unsubstantiated folklore” (p. 124) is just as applicable when the
word ‘writing’ is substituted with ‘oral presentations’. It is not possible or desirable to
attempt to ‘clone’ a favoured speaking style. What is more beneficial is to go beyond the
ubiquitous list of dot points that are presented as speaking truths and decide what is
possible, what is ambiguous, and what is conflicting in terms of general advice on offer to
students. Quite simply, it is not good enough to leave such important skills to ‘chance’, or
overly prescriptive comments on a rubric.
Oral presentations offer a unique assessment opportunity. As Dance (2002) advocates it
provides a chance to orally present one’s reasoning. This can only be achieved when
content and delivery are considered together or, as Joughin (2003) highlights, when
130
“content” is “demonstrated through the oral medium” (p. 2). There is no denying that
students should be given opportunities to orally present while at school. What this study
does question are the expectations placed on students from a very early age. For
example, new curriculum changes see students as young as prep year expected to stand
up in front of classmates and orally present a message. This actually brings with it
exciting possibilities in terms of being able to map and develop important skills associated
with presenting orally, rather than expecting that students will ‘know’ what to do from the
beginning to the end of their schooling.
7.7 Recommendations
This research argues that at the school or university level, the onus should be on helping
students to develop positive speaking traits rather than just being able to display them. It
makes sense that once employed in an area of ‘expertise’, the ability to become more
familiar, and therefore more confident, with content will grow because of direct and
continual experience in that area. But in relation to overall expectations at the student
level, these traits are not expressed in terms of development, but rather as qualities that
are already achieved – a successful presentation will be ‘interesting’, ‘succinct’,
‘expressive’ and ‘concise’. It is the mixed messages that accompany this type of
assessment that have been the basis of analysis. This study suggests that a major
reason for this is because while assessment requirements mean very strict and
prescriptive guidelines are enforced, such speaking opportunities are still seen to provide
for a more interactive and dynamic form of communication. In short, the mythology
surrounding what is understood as effective oral communication competes with what can
actually be achieved in a few short minutes in front of classmates when matters of
assessment come into play.
Oral communication is an essential graduate capability and, as such, is recognised as an
indispensable life skill. Prepared oral presentations for assessment provide one way for
students to learn how to orally communicate a message. This study acknowledges the
limitations placed on such formal communication exchanges, including assessment
matters. However, such evaluative requirements should not contradict or, at the very
least, impinge on assisting students to become expressive life-long learners. This study
has challenged the perceived relevance and ongoing benefits of prepared oral
presentations for assessment in both secondary schools and universities. From this initial
deliberation, recommendations include:
131
• Reconnecting with rhetorical theory as a way of supporting instruction and
feedback methods in relation to prepared oral presentations for assessment.
This would involve challenging current pedagogical practices that segregate
content from delivery, and consigning the oral component of this type of
assessment to the final ‘platform’ stage. This approach would also provide a
‘theoretical framework’ to the teaching and learning of oral communication,
rather than supplying a list of overly simplistic and prescriptive dot points. In
short, a renewed interest in this communication tradition would provide a
necessary link between theory and practice.
• Mapping the development of oral presentation skills across the school
curriculum from Prep to Year 12 with an emphasis on curricula planning for
the development of oral presentation skills. At the same time, reconciling
broad communication truths with current assessment requirements, including
revising the language and format of criterion-referenced assessment sheets
and determining what they offer students in terms of both instruction and
feedback.
Both of these recommendations require additional research including investigating the
teacher’s perspective in terms of how prepared oral presentations for assessment are
conducted. Again this would involve unpacking current practices and assumptions, many
of which have become entrenched over the years. Furthermore, any suggestion of using
rhetoric to underpin future approaches to the learning and teaching of oral presentations
would require understanding of the vast amount of rhetorical scholarship on offer. This
means pinpointing and highlighting rhetorical theory of most ‘relevance’ for presenting a
prepared oral message for assessment. (Relevance in this sense refers to the
development of skills that would assist students both at the school and university level as
well as in the workplace). Beyond the classroom experience there is opportunity for
additional research, for example investigating what oral communication skills are needed
in the 21st century to cope with modern work-related tasks. This would include looking at
changing technology which brings with it more opportunities to orally present a message.
The study findings indicate the need for a renewed and reinvigorated approach to the
teaching and assessing of prepared oral presentations. Most importantly, the study
recommends reconnecting with rhetoric as a way of understanding the dynamics of
132
effective oral communication. The study makes an important contribution to current
thinking and practice in teaching oral communication and provides a basis for further
research. While beyond the reach of the present study, a logical and useful extension
would be further research into the connection between oral communication and active
citizenship, that is the link between oral communication and active participation in social
and political life. The focus of this would be to investigate how students are encouraged
to become articulate, expressive and active citizens in contemporary society. Again, the
ancients have much to offer in this area and rhetoric would provide a useful
communication tradition on which to base this work.
133
REFERENCES
Abbott, C., & Godinho, S. (2001). Thinking voices: Developing oral communication skills. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.
Alexander, J. (2000). Orality and modern culture: ‘Listening’ in the English classroom.
Changing English, 7(2), 167-176. doi: 10.1080/13586840050137937 Aristotle.(2007). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. (G. Kennedy, Trans.).
Oxford:Oxford University Press. Barrass, R. (2006). Speaking for yourself: A guide for students. New York: Routledge.
Berlin, J. (1994). Revisionary histories of rhetoric: Politics, power and plurality. In V. Vitanza (Ed.). (pp. 112-127). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Bishop, B.J. (2007). Methodology, values and quantitative world-views in qualitative research in community psychology. The Australian Community Psychologist, 19(1), 9-18. Retrieved from http://www.groups.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Bishop_19(1).pdf
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (1990). The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times
to the present. Boston: Beford Books of St. Martin's Press. Bond University. (2010). Teaching at Bond. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from
http://www.bond.edu.au/prod_ext/groups/public/@pub-tls-gen/documents/genericwebdocument/bd3_012341.pdf
Booth, W. C. (2004). The rhetoric of rhetoric: The quest for effective communication.
Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Bradley, B. (1991). Fundamentals of speech communication: The credibility of ideas. (6th
ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown. Brown, S., & Glasner, A. (Eds.). (1991). Assessment matters in higher education:
Choosing diverse approaches. Buckingham, England: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Brummett, B. (Ed.). (2000). Reading rhetorical theory. Fort Worth: Harcourt College
Publishers.
134
Burke, K. (2005). How to assess authentic learning. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Burton, G. (2007a). Silva Rhetoricae: Memory. Retrieved February 18, 2009, from.
rhetoric.byu.edu Burton, G. (2007b). Silva Rhetoricae: Content/form. Retrieved February 18, 2009, from
rhetoric.byu.edu Carey, P. (2001). Rubrics: Making the outcomes clear to students. Journal of the
Educational Computing Association of Western Australia, 15(3), 6-7. Retrieved from http://www.ecawa.asn.au/login/2001/2001_3.pdf
Casaregola, V. (1992). Declassicizing ancient rhetoric: Toward a reconstructed rhetoric of
oral performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Cincinnati. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED348 695).
Chohan, R., & Smith, K. (2007). LearnHigher Oral Communication Literature Review.
Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://www.learnhigher.ac.uk/Download-document/147-Oral_Communication.htm.
Cicero. (1888). De Inventione. (C. D. Yonge, Trans.). Retrieved November 19, 2011, from
http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/cicero/dnv1-1.htm Cicero. (1942). De Oratore. (E. Sutton, Trans.). Retrieved November 19, 2011, from
http://www.archive.org/stream/cicerodeoratore01ciceuoft#page/332/mode/2up Clark, R. A. (2002). The importance of instructor-guided revision in a public speaking
course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association. New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from the ERIC database. (ED 471 852)
Cooper, D. (2005). Assessing what we have taught: The challenges faced with the
assessment of oral presentation skills. Paper presented at the 28th HERDSA Annual Conference (3-6 July). Retrieved from http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/conference/2005/papers/cooper.pdf
Connors, R., Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (Eds.). (1984). Essays on classical rhetoric and
modern discourse. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Corbett, E. P. J. (1990). Classical rhetoric for the modern student. New York: Oxford
University Press.
135
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119-161. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214711419?accountid=13380
Cresswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Crosling, G., & Ward, I. (2002). Oral communication: The workplace needs and uses of
business graduate employees. English for Specific Purposes,21(1), 41-57. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/85543657?accountid=13380
Curtin University. (2011). Curtin graduate attributes. Retrieved June 30, 2011, from
http://otl.curtin.edu.au/teaching_learning/attributes.cfm Dance, F. (2002). Speech and Thought: A renewal. Communication Education, 51(4),
355-359. doi: 10.1080/03634520216522 Darnley, L., & Martin, S. (1996). The Teaching Voice. London: Whurr. Deakin University. (2010). Graduate attributes – what are they? Retrieved June 30, 2011,
from http://www.deakin.edu.au/itl/pd/tl-modules/curriculum/grad-attrib/grad-attr-02.php
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage book of qualitative research (3rd
ed.).Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Denzin, N.K, & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative
research.(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). On distinctions between classical and modern rhetoric. In
R. Connors, L. Ede & A. Lunsford (Eds.), Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse (pp. 37-49). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Eunson, B. (2008). Communicating in the 21st century. Milton, Queensland: Wiley. Farnsworth, M. (2011). The ALP family: unhappy in its own way. The Drum Opinion.
Retrieved December 12, 2011, from http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2872100.html
Flaxman, R.L. (2008). They speak, we listen: Helping students create effective oral
presentations. The teaching exchange. 12(2), 1-3. Retrieved from http://brown.edu/Administration/Sheridan_Center/pubs/teachingExchange/jan2008/04_flaxman_they_speak_we_listen.pdf
136
Fleming, D. (1998). Rhetoric as a course of study. College English 61(2), 169-91.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/62475832?accountid=13380
Foss, S. (2009). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice. Long Grove, IL: Waveland
Press. Foss, S., Foss, A., & Trapp, R. (1991). Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Fritz, P.A. & Weaver, R.L. (1984). Teaching critical thinking skills in the public speaking
course: a liberal arts perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 249 556)
Glenn, C., & Carcasson, M. (2009). Rhetoric and Pedagogy. In A. Lunsford, K. Wilson &
R. Eberly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of rhetorical studies (pp. 285-292). Los Angeles: Sage.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston: Pearson. Gray, F. E., Emerson, L., & MacKay, B. (2007). Talking the Talk: Industry and student
perspectives on oral communication in science education. Paper presented at the ANZCA conference (Melbourne). Retrieved from http://www.anzca.net/conferences/anzca07proceedings.html
Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communiction theory (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Hasling, J. (1998). The audience, the message, the speaker. Boston: McGraw Hill. Hertenstein, J., Dallimore, E. J., & Platt, M. B. (2008). Using discussion pedagogy to
enhance students' oral and written communication.College Teaching, 56(3), 163-172. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/CTCH.56.3.163-172
Hodder, I. (2003). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. Denzin & Y.
Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, London: Sage.
Hugenberg, L.W., & Yoder, D.D. (1994) Communication competence: A reaction to the
"competent speaker speech evaluation form". Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Washington D.C., Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 372 432)
137
Jonsson, A. & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and
educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2, 130-144. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev
Joughin, G. (2003). Oral assessment from the learner’s perspective: The experience of
oral assessment in post-compulsory education. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20031125.091403/public/02Whole.pdf
Joughin, G. & Collom, G. (2003). Oral assessment. Retrieved from
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/resources/resourcedatabase/id433_oral_assessment.pdf
Kennedy, G. (1980). Classical rhetoric and its chrisitan and secular tradition from ancient
to modern times. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Kennedy, G. (1999). Classical rhetoric and its christian and secular tradition from ancient
to modern times. (2nd ed.). Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press. Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). Critical Constructivism primer. New York: P. Lang. Kohn, A. (2006). The trouble with rubrics. English Journal.95(4) 12-15. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/30047080?seq=1 Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles: Sage.
Lahiff, J., & Penrose, J. (1997). Business communication: Strategies and skills. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Lauer, J. (2004). Invention in rhetoric and composition. West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor
Press LLC. Levin, P., & Topping, G. (2006). Perfect presentations. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open
University Press. Littlejohn, S. W. (2002). Theories of human communication. (7th ed.). Belmont, California:
Wadsworth. Lucas, S. (1998). The art of public speaking. Boston, Massachusetts: McGraw-Hill.
138
Lunceford, B. (2007). The science of orality: Implications for rhetorical theory. The Review of Communication, 7(1), 83-102. doi: 10.1080/15358590701211142
Mcmillan, J.H. (2007). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective
standards-based instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon Manguel, A. (1996). A History of Reading. London: HarperCollins. Manuel, J. (2004). Connecting voices: Effective engagement and pedagogy for oral
English. In W. Sawyer & E. Gold (Eds.), Reviewing English: In the 21st Century (pp. 73-85). Melbourne: Phoenix Education.
McCarthy, P., & Hatcher, C. (2002). Speaking persuasively: The essential guide to giving
dynamic presentations and speeches. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
McCroskey, J. C. (2001). Introduction to rhetorical communcation (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
McKenna, B., Thomas, G., & Waddell, N. (2004). Australian guide to corporate
communication: A practical handbook for effective writing and speaking. Tuggerah, NSW: Social Science Press.
Merritt, L. (2003). Talking the talk: Communicate with persuasion, panache and passion.
Marrickville, NSW: Choice Books Miller, M., & Colwill, R. (2003). Queensland senior English: Theory-practice connections.
Sydney: Macmillan Education. Monash University. (2011a).Language and learning online: Speaking. Retrieved March 6,
2011, from http://www.monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/speaking/presentations/index.xml
Monash University. (2011b). Language and learning online: A guide to oral presentations.
Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://www.monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/quickrefs/11-oral-presentations.xml
Morreale, S. P., & Bovee, C. L. (1998). Excellence in public speaking. Fort Worth:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Moskal, Barbara M. (2003). Recommendations for developing classroom performance
assessments and scoring rubrics. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(14). Retrieved November 21, 2010 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=14
139
Murphy, E. (1996). Developing Student Presentation Skills. Paper presented at the HERDSA Conference. Perth, Western Australia. Retrieved January 9, 2010, from http://www.Herdsa.Org.Au/Confs/1996Murphy.Html
Oliver, R., Haig, Y., & Rochecouste, J. (2005). Communicative competence in oral
language assessment. Language and Education, 19(3), 212-222. doi: 10.1080/09500780508668675
Ong, W.J. (1977). Interfaces of the word: Studies in the evolution of consciousness and
culture. Ithaca: Cornell Univeristy Press. Ong, W.J. (1982). Orality and Literacy: the technologising of the word. London:
Routledge. Pearson, J.C., Child, J.T., & Kahl, D.H. (2006). Preparation meeting opportunity: How do
college students prepare for public speeches? Communication Quarterly, 54(3), 351-366. doi: 10.1080/01463370600878321
Petelin, R. (2009). Writing pedagogy: Pluralism required, but rhetoric rules. Paper
presented at the ANZCA conference (Brisbane). Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://www.anzca.net/conferences/anzca09proceedings.html
Popham, J. W. 1997. What’s wrong—and what’s right—with rubrics. Educational
Leadership 55(2), 72–75. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=8&sid=0270f75f-9b9d-4f1e-923c-903d9be07ed8%40sessionmgr14
Queensland Studies Authority. (2011). English subject guide. Retrieved February 9, 2011,
from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/senior/snr_english_10_syll.pdf Queensland University of Technology. (2011). Strategic Speech Communication Guide.
Brisbane: QUT Publishing. Queensland University of Technology. (2011). Graduate capabilities. Retrieved July 8,
2011, from http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/C/C_04_03.jsp Quin, R., & Cody, W. (1998). Senior English now. Melbourne: Longman. Quintilian. (1987). Institutio oratoria. In J. Murphy (Ed.). On the teaching of speaking and
writing: Translations from books one, two and ten of the Institutio oratoria. Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University Press
Ramus, P. (2010). Rhetoricae Distinctiones in Quintilianum. (C. Newlands, Trans.). In J.
Murphy (Ed.). Arguments in rhetoric against Quintilian. USA: Southern Illinois University.
140
Rhetorica ad Herennium. (1954). (H. Caplan, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Richards, J. (2008). Rhetoric: The new critical idiom. London: Routledge. Ryan, K., & Pauley, A. (2000). Speaking and debating with style: All you need to know
about debating or public speaking in any situation. Albert Park, Victoria: Phoenix Education.
Schӧn, D. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Great
Britain: Ashgate. Sellnow, D. D. (2005). Confident public speaking (2nd ed.). Belmont, California: Thomson
Wadsworth. Silverman, D. (1997). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and
interaction. London: Sage. Simons, H. (1986). Persuasion: Understanding, practice, and analysis. New York:
McGraw-Hill. Simons, H. (2001). Persuasion in society. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Sprague, J., & Stuart, D. (2005). The speaker's handbook. California: Thomson
Wadsworth. St. Pierre, E. (2002). “Science” rejects postmodernism. Educational Researcher,31(8),
25–27. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594391 Thompson, P. (1998). Persuading Aristotle: The timeless art of persuasion in business,
negotiation and the media. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Tasmanian Department of Education. (2010). Speaking and Listening. Retrieved July 8,
2011, from http://www.education.tas.gov.au/curriculum/standards/english/english/teachers/speak
Transferable Skills Project. (2010). Retrieved October 17, 2010, from
http://www.skillsproject.ie/integrate/index.html Travers, M. (2001). Qualitative research through case studies. London: Sage.
141
University of Newcastle. (2011). Learn about rubrics. Retrieved October 14, 2010, from http://www.newcastle.edu.au/unit/centre-for-teaching-and-learning/educational-resources/resources-for-staff-and-students/rubrics.html
University of New South Wales. (n.d.) Supporting staff in the development and
assessment of the UNSW graduate attributes: Developing and assessing students’ oral communication skills. Retrieved May 19, 2008, from http://learningandteaching.unsw.edu.au/toolkit/content/oral/OralCom_WebV1.pdf
University of Southern Queensland. (2009). The learning centre: Preparing the
presentation. Retrieved February 12, 2011, from http://www.usq.edu.au/learningcentre/alsonline/assessment/oralpresentations/preparation
Univeristy of Technology Sydney. (2007). Institute for interaction media and learning:
Understanding student learning. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/learnteach/enhance/understand/
University of Queensland. (2009). Statement of graduate attributes. Retrieved July 8,
2011, from http://www.uq.edu.au/hupp/?page=25095&pid=25075 Van Emden, J., & Becker, L. (2004). Presentation skills for students. Basingstoke, UK:
New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Verderber, R. F., & Verderber, K.S. (2006). The challenge of effective speaking. Belmont,
California: Wadsworth. Victorian Essential Learning Standards. (2009). English glossary. Retrieved January 31,
2011, from http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/english/glossary.html#l Welch, K.(1993). Reconfiguring writing and delivery in secondary orality. In J.Reynolds,
(Ed.). Rhetorical memory and delivery: Classical concepts for contemporary composition and communication (pp. 17-30). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Wolf, K., & Stevens, E. (2007). The role of rubrics in advancing and assessing student learning. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 7(1), 3-14. Retrieved from http://uncw.edu/cte/et/articles/Vol7_1/Wolf.pdf
Wood, J.T. (2000). Communication theories in action: an introduction. Belmont,
California: Wadsworth/Thomson Publishing. Young, K., & Travis, H. (2004). Oral communication: Skills, choices and consequences.
Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.
142
APPENDICES
The Appendices are not available online. Please consult the hard copy
thesis available from the QUT Library.