IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

The Impact of Pecha Kucha Presentations in the Assessment of aTranslation Studies Unit at The University of Western Australia

Anna Gadd Colombi
University of Western Australia, Australia

67

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Abstract
Results of a case study on the implementation of Pecha Kucha presentations undertaken at
The University of Western Australia in 2015 are presented and discussed here. Pecha Kucha,
a fast-paced presentation format consisting of 20 slides set to proceed automatically every 20
seconds, was used in the assessment of the unit “Translation Localisation” for two reasons: it
is a time-effective method to assess a large number of students in a short time, and it has thepotential to teach students whilst also assessing them, thus killing two birds with one stone.
Recent studies show that the Pecha Kucha style can improve presenting skills and English
speaking skills in general. This has particular relevance when teaching large numbers ofinternational students, such as in “Translation Localisation”, where 84% of students spoke
English as their second language. The paper ultimately shows how the use of Pecha Kucha
presentations in the assessment of a unit carries important pedagogical implications forstudents of English for Academic Purposes.
Keywords: Pecha Kucha presentations; English for academic purposes; English as a Second
Language; translation studies; localisation.

68

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Introduction
Pecha Kucha presentations originated in the context of architecture and design due to theneed to shorten and enliven standard 20-minute presentations. Klein and Dytham of “Klein
Dytham Architecture” are credited with the invention of Pecha Kucha in 2003. Apparently,“if you give an architect a microphone [. . .], they’ll go on forever” (PechaKucha.org/faq).
Hence, a time restriction was introduced in Pecha Kuchas as a measure to achieve brevity andconciseness. The presentation style caught on, initially only in architecture and design, andPecha Kucha Nights are now organized all over the world.
Pecha Kucha, which is an onomatopoeic word in Japanese, equivalent to ‘chit chat’ inEnglish, entails 20 slides that appear on the screen for 20 seconds each, for a total of 6.40
minutes. The presenter has no control over the slides, which have been previously timed, andneeds to continue speaking as each new slide appears on the screen. Compared to traditional
20-minute PowerPoint presentations, which feature a higher text to image ratio, Pecha
Kuchas use more images, such as photos, pictures or graphics. Text is usually not involved(Glendall, 2007, pp. 66–69), or is even avoided altogether, due to time constrictions.
Literature Review
Since 2003 the Pecha Kucha format has been used in large conferences to allow for more
speakers to present. In recent years a small number of teachers and researchers has answered
the question raised by Klentzin et al (2010, p. 160) – “Could Pecha Kucha be effectively used
as a teaching tool in higher education?” Pecha Kucha has been integrated in the classroom,
especially in Business schools and within the teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL)and English for Academic Purposes, studying the effects on both presenters and audiences
and both from the point of view of the teacher (who is assessing such presentations) and thestudent (who is giving the Pecha Kucha).
According to Miller Beyer (2011, p. 125), who studied the use of the format in a Psychology
course, Pecha Kucha “improves some aspects of student presentation quality as compared to
traditional PowerPoint”. Due to the fact that the slides in a Pecha Kucha are automated, thepresenter must be “organized to capture the message of each slide in the time permitted”(Miller Beyer, 2011, p. 122). There is also no reading from the slides permitted, so thepresenter has to be more engaged in their presentation and engaging to their audience. Miller
Beyer also notes how Pecha Kucha “may move presenters away from common weaknesses
found with traditional Power Point, [. . .] [forcing] students to be more focused on theirmessage because the time per frame is limited” (Miller Beyer, 2011, p. 122). Robinson agrees,claiming that the popular student strategy to read detailed notes while presenting canultimately be distracting and lead to a presentation which focuses on content exclusively,
giving little consideration to timing and pace (Robinson, 2015, p. 347).
Researchers do not seem to agree on the preparation times required for Pecha Kucha
presentations as opposed to standard PowerPoint presentations: Klentzin and colleagues
admit that “substantial preparation is essential for successful Pecha Kucha style presentation”(Klentzin, Paladino, Johnson, Devine, 2010, p. 161); Robinson warns us not to“underestimate the time to prepare the visuals and then to practice” (Robinson, 2015, p. 350);
while Miller Beyer, who conducted three experiments comparing the two styles, claims thateven though Pecha Kucha was novel to the students, it did not require more preparation timecompared to 20-minute presentations (Miller Beyer, 2011, p. 125).

69

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Anderson and Williams (2012, p. 1) emphasise the importance of communication skills as themost highly sought among employers of Business students. Translator scouting puts just as
much importance on communication skills, because these are often arguably seen as aportrayal of a translator’s proficiency in other languages. Translators, thus, need to display
outstanding proficiency in the languages they work with. This is one of the various reasons
behind my decision to implement Pecha Kucha presentations in the assessment of a unit ofTranslation Studies – Translation Localisation – within the Master of Translation Studies at
The University of Western Australia. To my knowledge, this is the first report showing
results of adapting Pecha Kucha to the Translation Studies classroom.
Case Study
The University of Western Australia (UWA) is one of the “Group of Eight” universities inAustralia, the eight most prestigious universities in the country, and a research-intensive
university. While the focus of the university is on research, excellence in teaching is also
expected. Teaching is structured around two 13-week semesters and the option of summer
intensive courses.
This case study analyses the implementation of Pecha Kucha presentations in the unit
“Translation Localisation”, a first-year unit of the Master of Translation Studies at UWA.
In Semester 2, 2015, 19 students enrolled in Translation Localisation. 16 of these students
studied translation from and into Chinese; 2 from and into Italian and 1 from and into French3.
The author is aware that 19 students is a particularly small sample size, which limits
generalisation to larger groups or other demographics or classroom topics of study. However,this article should be seen as a description of the author’s first experience implementing
Pecha Kucha in a small student cohort, and as an invitation for other unit coordinators toattempt using this type of presentation in their assessment.
There are a range of reasons which influenced the choice to use Pecha Kucha presentations inthis unit. First and foremost, since 84.2% of the students of Translation Localisation were
non-native speakers of English, with different levels of proficiency and, mostly, displaying
difficulties with aural skills, it was ideal to find a type of assessment which could alsoenhance the students’ oral skills, which would improve their presentations as well as provide
a useful tool for assessment. Results from existing studies on students of English as a Second
Language (ESL) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) show how Pecha Kucha canenhance the quality of students’ presentations (Robinson, 2015, p. 347). One of my
expectations before conducting the case study was to improve the speaking and presentation
skills by using Pecha Kucha in class. In a way, I aimed to kill two birds with one stone byassessing my students using a method which would ultimately better their presentations.
Time constraints were also at the basis of the decision to use Pecha Kucha in the assessmentof this unit: the aim was for the students to be able to present over a short period of time, inorder not to take too much time away from teaching. The Pecha Kuchas were planned for thelast two lectures of semester, thus across the last two weeks of teaching. In my experience asa tutor, I have witnessed how students’ presentations can occupy more than half a semester,3

One student did not complete the unit: they did not present a Pecha Kucha, nor did they take part in the peer
assessment and Qualtrics survey run at the end of semester.

70

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017and in these cases students not presenting can easily get distracted either working on theirown presentations or working on other assignments. My aim was to find a presentation stylewhich would hopefully involve the entirety of the classroom. Burke and James (2008, pp.
288–290) discuss the decline of standard PowerPoint presentations in the classroom, andKlentzin and colleagues (2010, p. 160) suggest Pecha Kucha as a novelty that could keep
students interested. This was another reason for me to implement Pecha Kucha in Translation
Localisation: my purpose was to captivate the viewers with a brand-new presentation
technique and also hopefully stem more curiosity than a standard 20-minute PowerPoint
presentation. Because of their brevity, Pecha Kucha presentations have the potential tooriginate more interest and, as a consequence, more questions from the audience.
Finally, I wanted to test the Pecha Kucha method against a different cohort to the ones
available to researchers (Business, ESL, EAP). My expectation before running the case study
was that the benefits of Pecha Kucha could be extended to other fields of higher education,
including the teaching of Translation Studies and, more precisely, Localisation. I aimed toanswer the research question whether Pecha Kucha could be used in the assessment of unit
Translation Localisation. I set out to consider both pedagogical and practical aspects of Pecha
Kucha presentations.
Methodology
The Pecha Kucha presentations were given a set title – “Translating with SDL Trados” – andwere aimed at assessing students’ knowledge of the functioning of SDL Trados, a localisation
software. Students were encouraged to critically reflect on the use of Computer-Assisted
Translation (CAT) tools in the practice of translation.
During the semester students were given plenty of information on Pecha Kucha presentations,and shown numerous Pecha Kuchas and how-to videos. This was done early in the semester
to allow students ample time to familiarise themselves with the format. More information was
uploaded on the unit’s Learning Management System (LMS), together with an information
sheet describing the assessment type in detail. A successful presentation would have been one
that showed the presenter could operate SDL Trados effectively and confidently. The
following excerpt is taken from the information sheet distributed to the students:
Ideally, you should take the viewer through the process of translating a documentwith SDL Trados. You can choose a text of your choice. This text should be in
English and you should show how you would go about translating into your
LOTE using SDL Trados.
You are allowed to include some theoretical concepts from the course, justremember to cite correctly. You can choose to have a final bibliography page or
you can include citations in small font in the corner of the relative slide.
You are allowed to reflect on your practice. How is SDL Trados useful in yourpractice as a translator? What are its limitations, if there are any?
Unlike traditional Pecha Kucha presentations, students were given the opportunity to use
slightly more text in their slides, in order to allow for critical reflection on CAT tools.
However, students were warned about the risks of having lengthy text slides: being on the71

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

screen for only 20 seconds, it was highly likely that not all the text could have been analysedin such a short time.
In the information sheet, I also outlined that students needed to include at least three
screenshots of a translation made on SDL Trados, to show that they had been using thesoftware to translate various types of documents. In week seven, I presented a Pecha Kucha
on the topic of translating using localising software in order to give my students an idea ofwhat their final presentations should have aimed for.
The final Pecha Kucha presentations were planned for weeks 12 and 13. The Pecha Kucha
would be assessed both by the tutor and by the peers. The weighting was divided as follows:
30% instructor assessment and 10% peer assessment. The assessment was worth a total of
40% of the students’ final mark. The other 60% was divided between essays (40%) andreading notes (20%). Both instructor and peer assessment followed the criteria listed byMiller Beyer (2011, p. 123): content, organisation, eye contact and voice quality, visual. Eachskill was worth 25 points for a total of 100 points. Students were not allowed to mark theirown presentations. Even though students were given the possibility to ask questions topresenters at the end of each Pecha Kucha, not many questions were asked. We canhypothesise that students of Translation Localisation did not engage in numerous postpresentation questions for reasons of anxiety and/or sympathy for their peers. In order tostimulate more questions, future Pecha Kucha assessments could implement compulsory
questions from the students. These could even substitute the 10% peer review, which, as weshall see in the data analysis section of this article, were unrealistically generous. Due to thefact that the audience will compulsorily have to ask questions about their peers’ presentations,audience attention should be retained.
At the end of the semester, a non-compulsory anonymous Qualtrics survey was conducted toascertain students’ opinions on this first Pecha Kucha experience at the Master of Translation
Studies at UWA. 88.8% of the student cohort took the survey.
Results and Discussion
The Pecha Kucha presentations were extremely satisfactory: 72.2% of the students who
participated passed. A large number of these students presented their Pecha Kucha withenthusiasm and engaged with the audience. This first quantitative data demonstrates how
students of Translation Localisation were able to succeed despite the limitations of Pecha
Kucha (total time constraint; 20-second per slide constraint; higher image to text ratio
compared to standard 20-minute presentations) using their own enthusiasm and creativity.
While Pecha Kucha does inevitably limit a presenter, it also allows the expression ofcreativity, which is used as a means to overcome such limitations successfully.
A small percentage of students (27.8%) failed to succeed in the presentations, mostly becauseof poor presenting skills (reading their notes during their presentations), poor visuals, andlimited research.
Stress and anxiety should be considered as a likely product of the Pecha Kucha presentations
requirement. Compared to a standard 20-minute presentation, Pecha Kucha has the potentialof making the students more anxious, due to time constraints. This may have contributed in
the failure of the above 27.8% of the student cohort. Stress and anxiety may also be thereason behind the lack of questions at the end of each Pecha Kucha. In future72

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

implementations of Pecha Kucha questions could be formally integrated in the assessment inorder to counteract this aspect. Below is a chart of the instructor’s marks, worth 30% of the
final mark:
Table 1: Instructor’s marks.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

The graph shows marks out of 100 (which were converted to 30% of the final mark). We canobserve that 8 students out of 19 scored high distinctions. While I recognise this is anunusually high number of HDs, it must be noted that these marks do reflect the exceptionallyhigh level of commitment on behalf of the students of the Master of Translation Studies.
These students showed an outstanding involvement with the subject and the audience, goodvisuals, did not read from their notes, and the content of their presentations was far more thansatisfactory. A small number of students scored from 79% to 50%, mostly presenting
problems with two or even three of the criteria in the assessment grid.
One student, for instance, had too many animation effects and it was not possible to read all
the text in their slides. As a consequence, they scored very poorly in the visuals criteria. They
also scored poorly in the content criteria as their presentation was basic and did not show any
critical engagement with the topic. A small part of the class did not pass the Pecha Kucha
presentations: these students presented problems in all the criteria described above. Student
no. 1 did not take part in the Pecha Kucha presenting a medical certificate and thenwithdrawing from the unit. Overall, the Pecha Kucha presentations went quite well: theaverage instructor’s score was 62.3%.

73

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Table 2: Peers’ marks.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Table 2 shows peers’ marks already converted into 10%. Peers’ marks are more generous
than instructor’s marks:4 the average mark was 7.15, hence 71.5%, a higher score comparedto the average instructor mark (62.3%). According to their peers, an outstanding 88.8% of theclass deserved to pass the test, while only two students failed (11.1%).
Some interesting data emerges from the comparison of instructor marks and peer marks:
students no. 6 and 2, who scored 50% according to the instructor, scored respectively 70%
and 80% according to their peers. Some students who failed according to the instructor,
passed according to their peers: student no. 18 scored 25% according to the instructor and
60% according to their peers; student no. 19 scored 42.5% according to the instructor and
66% according to their peers.
The above data may raise questions about the validity of peer assessment training. Were thestudents sufficiently trained to undertake this task? Were they able to understand theassessment grid they were provided with? This seems to be an important issue and one thatneeds to be further addressed in future implementations of Pecha Kucha. More interestingdata was collected via the Qualtrics survey conducted in week 13, immediately after the endof semester. 16 students kindly agreed to take the anonymous survey and they were asked thefollowing 9 questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Did you enjoy the Pecha Kucha presentations?
Was Pecha Kucha properly explained and discussed in class?
What aspect of the Pecha Kucha presentations did you enjoy most?
Do you think that presenting a Pecha Kucha improved your English-speaking skills?
Do you think that presenting a Pecha Kucha improved your presenting skills?
What did the Pecha Kucha experience teach you?
Do you think Pecha Kucha presentations are a good assessment method for this unit?
Would you recommend Pecha Kucha to be used in other units? Why?
Are there any other comments you would like to make on the Pecha Kucha experience?

4

Other studies show that the average quality ratings from the student raters were more generous than ratingsfrom the instructor. (Miller Beyer 2011, p. 124)

74

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Students were also provided ample space to leave any further comments to questions 3, 6, 7,
8. Finally, question 9 provided students the possibility to leave any further insights and/or
suggestions for future implementations of Pecha Kucha presentations. Open-ended questions,such as the ones included here have been referred to as ventilation questions because they
allow students to ventilate their feelings about the topic. The ventilation questions permitted
me to collect qualitative data and gain further insights into the relevance of the Pecha Kucha
presentations. They also gave students the chance to mention issues that perhaps were missedin the questions and might be taken on in future Pecha Kucha implementations. Following is
an analysis of the students’ response to the most salient questions in the survey.
Table 3: Qualtrics survey question 1.

The first question in the survey was aimed at gathering the students’ general opinions on the
Pecha Kucha experience. As Table 3 shows, Pecha Kucha was enjoyed by the entirety of thestudent cohort. No student answered “no” to the question: a result which exceeded my
expectations.
Table 4: Qualtrics survey question 2.

Another extremely positive result was found in the question regarding the in-classexplanation and discussion of Pecha Kucha, vital in the case of such an unknown techniqueamong students. 94% of the student cohort thought it was definitely explained and discussed
in class and 6% of them thought it was somewhat explained and discussed in class. No
student answered “no” to this question either.

75

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Table 5: Qualtrics survey question 3.

The purpose of question 3 was to establish which aspects of Pecha Kucha presentations
students enjoyed most. Students were given the possibility to choose more than one of theoptions listed or, alternatively, to click on “all of the above”. “Brevity” (44%), “being able toconvey high amounts of information in a short time” (44%), and “conciseness” (38%) are thecriteria with the highest percentages. These results were predictable, since it is well known
that students are not particularly fond of oral presentations in the first place. It looks as
though students of Translation Localisation appreciated presenting for 6.40 minutes
compared to the usual 20 minutes.
From an instructor’s point of view, I found that 6.40 minutes were more than enough toassess students’ understanding of and critical engagement with the translational software usedduring the course. The tendency towards information overload, that often characterises 20minute presentations, (Robinson, 348) was almost completely absent from Translation
Localisation’s Pecha Kuchas, in which students, due to the time limit and the urgency tocompress their message, could not afford to hesitate. Pecha Kucha forces presenters “toquickly and clearly communicate the essence of the subject without digression”. (Klentzin etal, 160) Students of Translation Localisation comprehended this, hence the high percentagesof “brevity”, “being able to convey high amounts of information in a short time”, and“conciseness”.
“Use of images” only scored 19%. We can hypothesise that most of the students realised that,in such a fast-paced presentation, they could not use many transitions and animation effects,
or at least not as many as they would in a standard 20-minute presentation. Following ourhypothesis, most students saw this as a limitation of the Pecha Kucha style of presentation,
hence the unpopularity of “use of images”. What is interesting is that, while most students’presentations did use images in a powerful manner, they failed to recognise this as one of
Pecha Kucha’s assets; on the contrary, they interpreted it as a limitation. In other words,
students perceived the absence of transitions and animations as an obstacle and did not realise
that, in class, they had indeed found their way around these supposed limitations, throughtheir creativity and through the use of high-impact images. Translation Localisation students’presentations indeed turned Pecha Kucha’s supposed image limitation into its true asset.
Some students perceived the entertaining component of these presentations (“delivering fun
presentations without boring the audience” 19%), adding the comments: “Great experience.
Helped me improve my skill for presentation. Great fun too!”; “We were able to see various
perspectives in a short period of time which was wonderful and exciting”. Finally, 6% of thestudents enjoyed the Pecha Kucha for all the criteria listed in the question.

76

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Yes
No

Figure 1: Qualtrics survey question 4. “Do you think that presenting a Pecha Kucha
improved your English speaking skills?”
Two questions in the survey had the purpose of investigating the connection between
preparing and presenting a Pecha Kucha and an overall improvement in students’presentations, particularly in regards to speaking and presenting skills. The first question was
aimed at students who spoke English as a foreign language, while the second was aimed at all
students, including Anglophones. Due to the variety of levels of English proficiency present
in the class, all students were asked to answer both questions. When asked, “do you think that
presenting a Pecha Kucha improved your English-speaking skills?” 75% of the students
responded “yes”. Hence, students felt that preparing for and presenting a Pecha Kucha helped
improve their speaking skills. This 75% are likely to be speakers of English as a foreign
language. It is probable that the added stress of the automated slides instilled in these students
the idea that more preparation, or rather, better preparation, was necessary to be successful inthis assessment. Since they had to prepare better, they felt that this presentation techniqueultimately bettered their speaking skills altogether. The remaining number (25%) is likely tobe represented by students whose English was first language or whose English-speaking
skills were already strong. Finally, we cannot exclude the possibility that some students felt
the presenting technique did not help improving their speaking skills.
The above data is interesting when compared to the data gathered in the following question:“do you think that presenting a Pecha Kucha improved your presenting skills?” Results areshown below.

77

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

YES
NO

Figure 2: Qualtrics survey question 5. “Do you think that presenting a Pecha Kucha improved
your presenting skills?”
While, on the one hand, 75% of the student cohort thought that Pecha Kucha helped
improving their speaking skills, 81% said it helped with their presenting skills in general.
Only 19%, hence 3 students in the class, responded that the Pecha Kucha did not improvetheir presenting skills.
The data gathered in both questions seems to be in accordance with recent research by
Robinson and Miller Beyer who claim that having to prepare for a presentation with
automated slides every 20 seconds has proven to increase the quality of students’ preparation,and ultimately, their presentations. This is especially relevant when the presentations are
given in a foreign language, a case in which Pecha Kucha can be used to build confidence
and raise awareness of the importance of timing, delivery and visual aids when giving apresentation. (Robinson, 2015, p. 347)
Having shown an impact on both presenting and speaking skills, I can claim that Pecha
Kucha may be an extremely useful tool in the English for Academic Purposes classroom, as
also already shown by the above cited studies. The scope of Pecha Kucha expands when we
consider the high numbers of international students who, speaking English as a second
language, enrol in Australian universities in undergraduate and postgraduate degrees5.
Providing fast assessment of large numbers of students, Pecha Kucha could easily be
implemented in the assessment and pedagogy of EAP courses at Australian universities andoverseas.
In this light Pecha Kucha presentations could be a wonderful gift we give our students while
marking them effectively.

5

In 2015, 4695 international students were enrolled in an undergraduate or postgraduate degree at The
University of Western Australia. Data retrieved on 12 May 2015 from: https://eis.uwa.edu.au

78

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Table 8: Qualtrics survey question 7.

The following question in the survey asked whether Pecha Kucha presentations were a good
assessment method for this unit. All students agreed that they indeed represented a good
method to assess their knowledge on and use of SDL Trados. Among these, 69% clicked on“yes” and 31% showed some reservations. No students clicked on “No”, a result thatexceeded my expectations.
The comments show some interesting considerations for the future. One student emphasised
the challenging component of Pecha Kuchas, as well as the fun element. Another thought
Pecha Kuchas are only a good assessment method for explaining the process of using SDL,
which was the very purpose of the assessment. This comment is in contrast with another one
stating that these presentations would have been more suited to the theoretical part of thesemester.6 The same comment also lists the problem of repetition, which recurs in the survey
and which will be analysed below. Among the students who chose “somewhat”, one claimed
that Pecha Kucha limits both time and creativity, while another states it is good for improving
presentation skills but too stressful. Stress was a calculated consequence of these speedy
presentations, and one that is, in any case, not completely absent from regular 20-minutepresentations. In fact, I expected for “stress” to be mentioned in the survey much more thanwhat actually occurred7. All things considered, according to the results of this survey, stressis not to be seen as an impediment to the implementation of Pecha Kuchas in this unit orother units.

6

In the first half of the semester, localisation was contextualized and presented from a theoretical point of view.
The second half of semester more was more practical and hands-on: it provided students with proficiency in themain functions of SDL Trados. The UWA’s Multimedia Centre provided assistance during the semester and Mr
Mitchell Chiappalone held a seminar introducing SDL Trados.
7
There are only two occurrences of the words ‘stress’ and ‘stressful’ in the entire survey.

79

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Table 9: Qualtrics survey question 8.

Table 10: Negative responses to question 8.

Table 11: Positive responses to question 8.

More comments were left by the students in the Qualtrics survey, the following is an analysisof those.
Leaving a comment was, of course, not compulsory but rather at the student’s discretion. 11
students out of the 16 who took the survey left a comment; some of the comments wereextensive, others short. Qualitatively, there were more positive than negative comments (7 to3) and some of the negative comments contained positive elements. Finally, 2 comments did

80

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017not contain a negative evaluation of the experience, but rather only suggestions andimprovements for the future.
Among the negative comments, one student claimed that Pecha Kucha “makes you practicemore”. Another emphasised how repetitive it can be when all the class is asked to present on
the same topic, a suggestion I have seriously considered for future implementations of Pecha
Kucha, in which students will be able to choose among different titles and aspects of CAT
tools translation and among different types of translation software. Another comment reads:“Pecha Kucha itself is a good way of shortening things, but for some theoretical stuff orpersonal opinion, normal presentation suits me more”. This student did not explain in what
way a normal presentation is better for the exposition of theoretical concepts and opinions
and continued by mentioning that they “don’t like being nervous”, thus implying that a
speedy presentation causes more nervousness than a standard 20-minute one.
The seven positive comments showed that students comprehended the teaching and learningpotential of the Pecha Kucha presentations: “Great experience. Helped me improve my skill
for presentation. Great fun too!”; “A lot was learned in the process of creating a Pecha Kucha.
[. . .] This was a great way to continue the learning process as the presentation was being
made. Something different, innovative, fun and would definitely recommend it for anything it
can be adapted to, absolutely any topic or theme. One of the most enjoyable assessment
methods I have ever come across!” One comment focused on the preparation aspect, stating,“I enjoyed the whole preparation process more than when I was preparing for other kind ofpresentation”. Time-saving quality and efficacy are mentioned among the qualities of speedy
presentations. In the same comment, the suggestion of providing many topics to choose fromis made (“but I would love to present one of many topics given by the teacher instead of thesame one with all the other students”) with the reservation that “some of the students had
tried to make some differences”.
The repetition issue is also raised by another student of the Translation Localisation Pecha
Kuchas: “Maybe more freedom on the choice of topic is better, because many people talked
about the same thing.” This suggestion, though, seems to be in contrast with a comment on
the variety of presentations despite the same topic: “We were able to see various perspectives
in a short period of time which was wonderful and exciting”.
Another perfectly valid suggestion was to “encourage [students] to ask questions after eachpresentation”, which will be taken in consideration for next year’s Pecha Kucha integration.
The peer marking component of the experience, particularly appreciated by one of thestudents (“I would like to add that the peer marking of the presentations in class also plays animportant part. It gets everyone involved and helps develop a critical attitude”) may also bepart of next year’s Pecha Kucha integrated unit.
Conclusions
Including Pecha Kucha presentations in the assessment of unit Translation Localisation in the
Master of Translation Studies at The University of Western Australia provided several
advantages. Presentation times were drastically reduced in comparison with traditional 20minute presentations, allowing for all presentations to be carried out in only four hours at theend of semester. Students’ attention levels were extremely high during their peers’presentations. Two factors contributed to this: the brevity and conciseness of Pecha Kuchas,and the implementation of peer assessment alongside tutor assessment. As far as peer

81

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017assessment is concerned, asking the Qualtrics survey respondents whether or not they felt thatthey had sufficient training and/or understanding of the presentation assessment criteria given
could shed some light on the issue of the validity of peer assessment and, ultimately, improve
future implementations.
Preparing and presenting for a Pecha Kucha helped students achieve brevity, conciseness andmade them able to deliver large amounts of information in a short time. The vast majority ofstudents, and in particular those whose English is a second language, felt that the Pecha
Kucha experience helped improving their overall speaking and presenting skills. The entire
student cohort enjoyed the experience and left numerous positive comments and a small
number of negative comments and suggestions in the Qualtrics survey. The author thoroughly
enjoyed the Pecha Kucha assessments: while the 6:40-minute presentations were brief, they
provided the author with plenty of time to assess the students.
Overall, the results obtained in the case study (both the students’ scores in the presentations
and their opinions in the survey) are extremely satisfying and justify the integration of Pecha
Kucha presentations in the unit Translation Localisation. The positive results also justify apossible implementation of the Pecha Kucha assessment experience in other units of the
Master of Translation Studies in the future, perhaps extending the experience to larger student
cohorts and implementing the suggestion made by the students on supplying a variety of
topics for presentation, in order to avoid repetition.
The results obtained in this case study suggest fruitful avenues for additional exploration. A
possible improvement of the Pecha Kucha assessment experience consists in making
questions from the audience compulsory. As previously stated, because of the questions,students will have to listen carefully to their peers’ presentations and will not be likely to use
this time to prepare for their own presentation or getting distracted. Switching the extremely
generous peer assessment with compulsory questions might result in interesting data forcomparison with the current case study, while at the same time guarantee students’ attention
to peers’ presentations.
It would be helpful to repeat the study with another class in order to ensure results are
consistent and support preliminary findings. A pilot study on the comparison of Pecha Kucha
and 20-minute PowerPoint presentations, similar to Miller Beyer’s, could also be considered.
When running a pilot study, it would be interesting to delve into the issue of preparation time,
especially because of the different opinions available in the literature. Extra questions on thisissue would be added to the Qualtrics survey to check on students’ perceptions and an
exciting video-diary on their preparation could also be part of the assessment.
Ultimately, results from research in the implementation of Pecha Kucha presentations inTranslation Studies units could be of value in other disciplines, particularly, but not
exclusively, in English for Academic Purposes and in all disciplines which face high numbersof international students with varying degrees of proficiency in the English language. Being
able to kill two birds with one stone – teaching and assessing at the same time – andproviding quick assessment compared to standard 20-minute presentations, Pecha Kucha
presentations can indeed be a useful tool for the teacher and the learner alike.

82

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

References
Anderson, J. S. & Williams, S. K. (2012). Pecha Kucha for lean and sticky presentations inbusiness classes. Working Paper Series, 12(3), 1–9.
Burke, L. & James, K. (2008). PowerPoint-based lectures in business education: An
empirical investigation of student-perceived novelty and effectiveness. BusinessCommunication Quarterly, 71(3), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569908317151
Evans, S. (2013). Just wanna give you guys a bit of an update: Insider perspectives on
business presentations in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 32(4), 195–207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.05.003
Glendal, J. (2007). 20 presentations. 20 slides. 20 seconds. Architecture, 66-69. Retrieved
from http://www.architecturemagazine.com
Johnson, D. A. & Christensen, J. (2011). A comparison of simplified-visually rich andtraditional presentation styles. Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 293–297.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311421333
Klentzin, J.C., Paladino, E. B, Johnson, B, Devine C. (2010). Pecha Kucha: Using “lightning
talk” in university instruction. Computers & Education, 35(3), 175–187.
McDonald R. E. & Derby, J. M. (2015). Active learning to improve presentation skills: The
use of Pecha Kucha in undergraduate sales management classes. Marketing Education
Review, 25(1), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2015.999593
Miller Beyer, A. (2011). Improving student presentations: Pecha Kucha and just plain
PowerPoint’. Teaching of Psychology, 38(2), 122–126.
Robinson, R. (2015). Pecha Kucha: How to improve students’ presentation skills’. The
European Conference on Language Learning 2015 Official Conference Proceedings,
347–351.
Smith, K. (2013). Pecha Kucha or creatively crafting chit chat presentations with concisionand precision. Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University ofGreenwich, 7, 1–2.
Corresponding author: Anna Gadd Colombi
Email: anna.gadd@uwa.edu.au

83

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Appendices
Appendix A

TRNS 5004 TRANSLATION LOCALISATIONEND OF SEMESTER PRESENTATION – INFORMATION SHEET.

Your end of semester presentation can be in the following format:‘Pecha Kucha’ PowerPoint Presentation
Your presentation should:
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

Consist of 20 slides shown for 20 seconds, for a total of 6 minutes 40 seconds.
You can find information on how to set the timer on PowerPoint at the following links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9zxNTpNMLo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGVCKCn6jBc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32WEzM3LFhw
General information on how to make a Pecha Kucha presentation can also be found at
this link: http://avoision.com/pechakucha
I will also upload a Pecha Kucha to LMS and show it in class so you can use it as an
example! J
Your presentation topic is “Translating with SDL Trados”: you should show to theclass that you know how to use the software effectively and confidently.
You should include at least 3 screenshots from SDL Trados, to show that you havebeen using it to translate.
Ideally, you should take the viewer through the process of translating a document withSDL Trados. You can choose a text of your choice. This text should be in English
and you should show how you would go about translating into your LOTE using SDL
Trados.
You are allowed to include some theoretical concepts from the course, justremember to cite correctly. You can choose to have a final bibliography page or you
can include citations in small font in the corner of the relative slide.
You are allowed to reflect on your practice. How is SDL Trados useful in yourpractice as a translator? What are its limitations, if there are any?
As for the assessment, the end of semester presentations will be peer assessed inclass, so you all need to be present to everybody’s presentations. Failure to do so will
be reflected in your participation mark.
The best presentations will be uploaded to LMS.
Should you have any questions, you can email me at anna.gadd@uwa.edu.au

84

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Appendix B

TRANSLATION LOCALISATION TRNS 5004
PEER ASSESSMENT OF PECHA KUCHA PRESENTATIONS
Rate your peer’s Pecha Kucha presentation using the following criteria. Please don’t forget towrite the presenter’s name and last name. Do not write your own name and last name. Theninsert scores next to each skill and add up the overall score. This type of assessment isanonymous and will make up 10% of your Pecha Kucha presentation mark.

Presenter’s name and last name:

CONTENT/25

ORGANISATION /25
PRESENTATION (VOICE QUALITY AND EYE CONTACT)VISUAL/25

OVERALL/100

Scale:

0/5 poor
6/10 below average
11/15average
16/20 good
21/25 excellent

85/25