Learner ownership in student presentation success (revised)
-
Upload
lee-arnold -
Category
Education
-
view
74 -
download
0
Transcript of Learner ownership in student presentation success (revised)
Introduction
• Student oral presentations have gained ground in recent years among TEFL practitioners in Japanese higher education
• Rationale for oral presentations based in performance as an alternative measure of assessment (Brown and Hudson, 1998)
• Viability buoyed by potential for more learner-centric involvement (Otoshi and Heffernen, 2008)
Issues
• uPotential for learner anxiety with target language (Koch and Terrell, 11991), particularly in situational tasks (Williams and Andrade, 2008)
• uDanger with learner misunderstanding and incomprehension of uevaluative criteria (Orsmond, Merry and Reiling, 2000)
• uPossibility of significant peer bias in peer presentation evaluation h(Dochy, Segers and Sluijsmans, 1999).
Research focus and investigative gaps
• uBulk of literature focuses on oral presentation preparation and uevaluative metrics
• uWhat learners produce is often overlooked
• uSuccessful presentation outcome may best be measured by the level oof ownership learners take in preparation process
• uVisual and linguistic artifacts of presentation may reveal such levels
Alternative focus
• uPossibility exists that a focus on effort and execution rather than eevaluative criteria may free up learner potential
• uSuch focus suited for novice presenters
• eExplicit guidelines and models rather than evaluative metrics may eespecially serve novices better
• tTrading off such metrics may gain for learners a greater sense of iownership over presentation preparation process
Samples of alternative criteria of success
• uAll samples here focus on effort and execution
• uAlmost all learners had never previously attempted oral presentations nin L2 and had no prior frame of reference for them
• Learners given explicit guidelines and shown samples of previous ulearner Power Point and poster efforts
Sample class #1
• uMostly high-beginner second- and third-year early childhood ueducation majors in elective early childhood education English ucommunication class
• uTarget content of L2 in disseminating instructions or explaining Sschool policies and procedures in interactions with mixed Japanese-Fforeign parent English users
• uSecondary use of English for communication of instructions with ureturnee children whose proficiency in Japanese may be behind their eEnglish ability
Sample class #1 learner analysis
• uPoster presentations best for this particular L2 learner load
• PPreparation emphasis on collaboration as investment in process
• uAim of presentations for exploring themes in their future field
• uUse of L1 allowed for purposes of topical illustration
• uL2 errors tolerated if not a distraction from presentation theme
Sample class #1 outcome
• uLearners could deliver presentations to guidelines though some were iishorter than others while some projects were simpler
• uLess-proficient groups spread L2 load out among members while umore proficient allowed stronger individuals to step forward
• uHigh level of cooperation and collaboration within each group
• uOverall outcome successful for their level of proficiency
Sample class #2
• uVariable (low-to-high) intermediate-level sophomore and junior ulearners in an elective culture-centric English class at a technical uuniversity
• uTarget content with L2 made up of culturally-oriented themes that ccould be exploited for gaining confidence with public speaking for ppotential future professional requirements
• uNon-major-oriented material potentially of value to learners for its efocus on content rather than form
Sample class #2 learner analysis
• PPoster and Power Point vehicles equally suitable for their L2 load ubut time and core requirements in major dictated poster displays
• PPreparation emphasized collaboration in groups but allowed forr uindividual presentations
• uAim of presentations to have learners explore one theme in L2
• uUse of L1 permitted for topical illustration but advised against given ooverall L2 ability
• uL2 errors nonetheless tolerated if not a distraction from theme
Sample class #2 outcome
• uWhile yielding interesting presentations on theme some groups udemonstrated greater member cooperation than others
• uAlmost all presentations nonetheless demonstrated adequate length uwith a few exceeding allotted time
• uSome disinterest may have arisen from nature of content
• SSome conspicuous L2 errors but best efforts revealed excellent idea oorganization and spoken output
Sample class #3
• uMixed level third-year pharmaceutical science majors in a field-uspecific English class at a pharmaceutical sciences university
• uTarget content with English in reading and discussing themes in upharmaceutical sciences for future professional purposes
• uRoutine presentations in L1 for student laboratory research natural bbridge for presentation in L2
Sample class #3 learner analysis
• PSize and nature of class dictated group projects
• uPower Point ideal for more proficient L2-using groups but poster uand OHP displays permitted
• uAim of presentations to have learners gain confidence with L2 needs iiin their future field
• uUse of L1 permitted for topical illustration given mixed levels
• uL2 errors nonetheless tolerated if not a distraction from theme
iSample class #3
efforts
Sample class #3 outcome
• uPresentations were consistently engaging to audience
• iGroups brought out most in themselves with regard to member ucollaboration and L2 effort
• uLittle to no L1 use in visual content or oral presentation
• uAlmost all presentations kept to time with clear transitions from one ppoint to another within respective topics
• uSupportive peer environment
Conclusion
• uNovice presenters mostly capable of successful preparation and udelivery without intricate metrics of evaluation
• eLack of such metrics may relieve some degree of pressure even with hrisk of margin of error and inaccuracy
• aApproach does not guarantee novice presenter reliability but is still ppreferable to criteria that may be difficult for novices to meet
• uGraded metrics of evaluation can be introduced based on L2 pproficiency, content, and level of presentation experience
References
Brown, J.D., & Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly 3232 (4), 653-675.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer-, and co-assessment in hihigher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-35.
Koch, A.S., & Terrell, T.D. (1991). Affective reactions of foreign language students to nanatural approach activities and teaching techniques. In E.K. Horwitz & D.J. Young (Eds.), LiLanguage anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp.109–126). EiEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2000). The use of student derived marking criteria in pepeer and self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(1), 23-38.
Otoshi, J. & Heffernen, N. (2008). Factors predicting effective oral presentations in EFL clclassrooms. The Asian EFL Journal 10 (1), 65-78.
Williams, K., & Andrade, M. (2008). Foreign language learning anxiety in Japanese EFL cliclasses: causes, coping, and loss of control. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language TeTeaching 5 (2), 181-191.