One problematic aspect in the search for studies is the variety of terms and acronyms used to refer to OPs. Among them are OPs –oral presentations (Andeweg, de Jong, & Hoeken, 1998; X. Li, 2018), AOP –academic oral presentations– (Kaur & Ali, 2017), OAP4 –oral
academic presentations–(Morita, 2000; Wu, 2010), student presentations (Fortanet, 2005;
Yaakob, 2013), speeches (Giménez, 2000; Reinhart, 2005), academic speeches (Simpson-Vlach, 2006) academic presentations (Reinhart, 2005; Rendle-Short, 2006), academic student
presentations (Ágnes, 2002), student academic presentations (Zareva, 2009). I find the use of these terms problematic at least for two reasons. The first is the delimitation of genres. The term presentation implies speaking in front of an audience; therefore, presentation could cover lectures, workshops, class presentations, and other monologues. The addition of the adjectives
3 Other intermediate genres like the graduate seminar (Weissberg, 1993)3 although not as frequent, will also be referred to.
4 I had originally adopted this acronym but given its other meanings (e.g. old age pensioner) and probable negative connotations, I adopted OPs.
oral and/or academic, and the alternation of their order does not really help to clarify the nuance in which they should be interpreted. This is evident in some reviews of the literature (e.g. Kaur & Ali, 2017) in which oral presentations is used in the public speaking and not the genre (mode, tenor, field) sense. When terms like student, classroom, engineering, or conference are added, the delimitation of the genre is clearer. The vague character of the term presentation, and this is the second reason, also makes the search for literature more difficult than it is when searching for clearly delimited genres like research article. This is probably a reflection of the difficulties in defining oral genres that McCarthy (1998) refers to.5
2.4.2. The study of OPs as a student genre
OPs are an under-researched genre if compared with written genres or oral genres like lectures and CPs. However, studies have grown in number, which is evidenced in recent OPs literature reviews (Barrett & Liu, 2016; Kaur & Ali, 2017; van Ginkel, Gulikers, Biemans, & Mulder, 2015).
Until recently, literature on oral academic discourse focused on aspects other than linguistic or discourse descriptions (Zareva, 2009), and OPs literature was not the exception. Non-linguistic studies on OPs can be located in four strands: pedagogical, vocational orientation, professional settings, and textbooks (Figure 2.4). Pedagogical based studies focus on students’ needs in different disciplines, challenges they face, and individual factors affecting their performance. Studies also include teaching innovations to approach OPs, reflections on what
5 I do not seem to be consistent in my critique. I use oral presentation and OPs in this thesis although I claim that doing so is problematic. I came to the conclusion of the confusion of terms recently, after I had written two modules and two articles using the term oral presentation and its acronym OP. I decided to keep using them just to keep consistency across my studies.
classroom aspects improve with OPs, and performance assessment. Vocational orientation and professional settings literature explores aspects of projection, development, and professional growth related to OPs. Finally, available public speaking textbooks can be classified in two groups: general advice for different audiences and specific instruction, study, and practice of linguistic aspects (Figure 2.4).
Pedagogical
Needs analysis
- EAP (Ferris, 1998; Ferris & Tagg, 1996), - Medicine (Haber & Lingard, 2001) - Geography (Hay, 1994),
- Engineering (Bhattacharyya & Shaari, 2012) - Marketing (M. R. Young & Murphy, 2003) - Non-engineering fields (Kim, 2006);
Challenges
- Language knowledge (Mahfoodh, 2014; Stapa, Murad, & Ahmad, 2014) or choices (Chanock, 2005)
- L2 socialization across disciplines (Zappa, 2001) - Speech suppression caused by slide use (Wecker, 2012)
- Lack of experience or practice opportunities (Evans, 2013; L. Yang, 2010) - Face-threatening events (Thompson & Collins, 1995)
- Sources of anxiety (Chen, 2009; Mohd Radzuan & Kaur, 2011; Woodrow, 2006)
Individual factors
Styles and strategies for OPs
- Self-directed learning (Tsai, 2011)
- Verbal guidance (T. Brown & Morrissey, 2004) - Connection to learning strategies (Chou, 2011)
- Goal orientation and self-reflection (De Grez, Valcke, & Roozen, 2009b)
Perceptions of… in relation to OPs
- Own competence and actual Performance (Alwi & Sidhu, 2013) - Peer (Girard, Pinar, & Trapp, 2011) and self (Miles, 2014)
evaluations
- Video-assisted self-reflection (VASR)(X. Li, 2018)
- Factors predicting (Otoshi, J., & Heffernen, 2008) and leading to (Soureshjani & Ghanbari, 2012) OPs effectiveness in EFL
Expectations of… - Genre (Seliman, 1996)
Attitudes towards… - OPs (De Grez, Valcke, & Berings, 2010b; Gedamu, 2016)
Instructional innovations
Instruction mode: multimedia-based (De Grez, Valcke, & Roozen, 2009a), online (Hill & Storey, 2003), task-based (Rahman, 2010), clinical reasoning (Wiese, Varosy, & Tierney, 2002), experiential learning (Qurban & Austria, 2009), service-Learning (Tucker & McCarthy, 2001), expert behaviour analysis (K. L. Taylor & Toews, 1999), model-based (Green et al., 2005; Swanson, Spooner, Reeder, Haight, & Senthilselvan, 1992; P. Taylor, 1992), learning by design (LBDM) (Devi, Amir, & Krish, 2014), OPs conditions modification (Bayless, 2004)
Presentation types: goal-based embedded team and individual (Kerby & Romine, 2009), simultaneous (Shimo, 2011)
Portfolios: public speaking (Jensen & Harris, 1999) video (Moore & Voth, 1997),
Assessment: use of real-world standards (Pittenger, Miller, & Mott, 2004), audience-in-charge format (Shaw, 2001), student-taught review sessions (M. R. Nilsson, 2001)
Improvement of classroom practices
L1
- Embedding, teaching and assessing oral
communication in university science subjects (Chan, 2011),
- Optimum number (Calcich & Weilbaker, 1992)
L2
- Benefits (Al-Issa & Al-Qubtan, 2010; Munby, 2011), - L2 oral performance improvement with OPs (Miles,
2003; J. Wilson & Brooks, 2014) or teaching oral Academic discourse (Cheong, n.d.)
Assessment - Peer (W. Cheng & Warren, 2005; De Grez, Valcke, & Berings, 2010a; Mitchell & Bakewell, 1995; Smith & King, 2004) and/or - Self (Campbell, Mothersbaugh, Brammer, & Taylor, 2001; Reitmeier & Vrchota, 2009)
Vocational orientation
• Professional projection (Fallows & Steven, 2000; Yusoff, 2010; Živković, 2015)
• Research related skills and
presentation of findings (Bankowski, 2010; Wu, 2010) Professional settings • Professional development (Boyd, 1989; Rowley, 2012) • Gaming as socialization (Castronova, 2013). Textbooks
• Advice and information for Graduate student spoken genres (Huang, 2010)
Public speaking (Beebe & Beebe, 2015; Osborn, Osborn, & Osborn, 2012)
International conference presentations (Wallwork, 2010) • Information on language
(Wallwork, 2010), models analysis, and practice exercises on academic presentations (Reinhart, 2005)
Figure 2.4. Survey of literature on non-linguistic aspects of academic OPs
These non-linguistic aspects are important to inform theory users in the design of plans to help students improve their OPC (oral presentation competence (De Grez, 2009)). However, discourse-based descriptions of (non)professional and (non)successful OP language behaviour are important for curricular planning, class instruction, and materials design for college and NNS students.
Studies on OPs as a student (NNS/novice researcher) genre are few and can be classified into 3 categories based on the area they focus on: general structure and moves, lexicogrammar features, and multimodality.
Studies on moves or parts include the analysis of attention-getting techniques in the introduction (Andeweg et al., 1998), moves and structures of the OPs body (Seliman, Salbiah; Affendi, Irwan; Pendidikan, 2010) disagreement, involvement, and intrusion in the Q&A section (Lin, 2017). A recent study (Hu & Liu, 2018) focuses on 3-minute thesis presentations moves.
Most of the studies can be placed in the lexicogrammar/functional strand. These studies comprise the analysis of multi-word verbs (Zareva, 2016), metadiscourse (Ágnes, 2002; Alessi, 2005; Rui & Xin, 2009), students perception of OPs’ formality as reflected in circumstantial adverbials (Zareva, 2009), OPs’ structural organization (Yeereem, 2013), pronouns and rhetorical questions (Vassileva, 2002), or from a multidimensional analysis stance (Iberri-Shea, 2011). Other studies analyse how presenters interact with the audience (Rendle-Short, 2006), express stance with pronouns (Morton, 2009, 2011; Nausa, 2016; Zareva, 2013) and adverbials or other
structures (Zareva, 2012). Finally, another area of interest is the lexicogrammar mechanisms to transition from written to oral discourse (Nausa, 2017, 2018).
The analysis of multimodality in OPs has mainly focused on slide transitions and includes spatial deictics use and image integration (Morton, 2006; Rendle-Short, 2006).