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.