Part 2: Inquiry into language learners

Developed autonomy
through self-andpeer-assessment andreflection: Awarenessand success in students1

presentation skills

F

Yoko Wakui
Keisen University,
Aoyama Junior College
ywakui@bu.iij4u.or.jp
About Yoko

I graduated with my Master's degree in TESOL from Columbia University Teachers
College in 2003. Having taught at Rissho Universityfrom 2003 through 2005,1 havebeen teaching at Keisen University since 2004 and Aoyama Junior College since 2005.
My research interests include autonomy, motivation, psychology, and strategies for
all four skills.

2oo3¥> ziny\z7A"^A^^^-(-^^-7:iiyyym± nm%o 20033^
t>2005^XiLiE±mzX$kW&mV, 2004¥=fcOJSm£c^H*^ 2005^J:

tem&> £m&M<DW&jjm%4pfc\zffln*ft^x^z>,

63•More A u t o n o m y You Aski

64 * Wakui
Acknowledgements

Many thanks go out to all of the LearnerDevelopment Special Interest Group officers who
worked hard to publish this book. Special thanks also go to Eric Skier and Miki Kohyama for
their dedication to this project, to our collaborating researchers, Mark Surma and Jodie Ste
phenson, and to everyone else who has given me insights into this project from various pointsof view. Thank you!
Abstract

Mygoalin this paper is toinvestigate three questions. Myfirstquestion iswhether students' awarenessof learningprocesses wasraised, and whether they realized theimportance ofautonomyfor theirownlearning, using self- andpeer-assessment. Another question is howself- and peer-assessment influ
enced students' presentation skills. The last question is how students responded to those assessments.
Twenty-eight students in a required course in a university made two presentations in one semester.
They discussed and decided on thecriteria for evaluating presentation skills a week before their presentation and assessed themselves and peers based on those criteria on the day of thepresentation.
Students used thisself-assessment list to setgoalsfor developing theirpresentation skills. Atfirst they
were hesitantaboutevaluatingtheirpeers' presentations orgiving comments on them but would lateron end up taking much more active roles in theprocess. The results maysuggest some implications for
future alternative assessment method and curriculum design.
1g7°a-tMzttt&MWi%:Mi£>, *—bJS.-<DSM&*MWat%<Df£%:5tii\ *&, JLOJMBGF3W*^©3B*tt#fc£©±3JMMSMFA.*®j£M#. *LT, *ftl>T*&B^©IHB&3ftc#l/T
Z<D&5f3.KM%7£T<Dl?:?>-5-t)\ %^A¥(D>&m%B(D28A(D'¥/Sitfl'¥MWZ2\B\m%;&T-5 = %^(D\mmwnz^m^tKDwmmm^mm<DoK.{^fS.L, *©*c*©awcafc**, ge&ww<D%&<Dwm&fro. ¥&.m$&ft<D%&mj]%m<tztb\z, gEff«©u*b£g«iLxfiijfi5„ ¥&Mtem®ffl$<D%m&wmLtzK>zi*>r-&ft^rzr)tzz\t&m%-t2>tf, mzmmmz

Twenty-eight female students majoring in International Studies in a university in Tokyo
participated in this study. I chose low-intermediate-level students as participants, because lowlevel students cannot find their own strategies, whereas high-level students do not need muchsupport, because they already know how to improve their ability autonomously. The students
were interested in social issues, but it does not necessarily mean that they were comfortablewith speaking English. The six-month course, Current Affairs, was a required course, but
students could choose their preferred teacher out of three. They had a chance to sit in different
classes for about two weeks and then make their decisions. We met twice a week, so it waspossible to observe as many as four lessons before they finally decided on which course tochoose. A large number of students, 28, signed up for my course, whereas around 20 enrolled
in the other teachers' courses. Perhaps this was because I allowed them to have a voice inthe selection of the textbook and which topics we would be discussing. Some students were
motivated to work hard, they said, because they had such freedom.
Autonomy in language learning is desirable (Cotterall, 1995). She claims as below;
The practical argument for promoting learner autonomy is quite simply that a teacher
may not always be available to assist. Learners need to be able to learn on their own
because they do not always have access to the kind or amount of individual instruction
they need in order to become proficient in the language.

LD

SIG

2006

Anthology

65*

Developed a u t o n o m y

I explored the students' autonomy through the implementation of self- and peerassessments and their reflections. I also investigated whether self- and peer-assessments would
be beneficial to students in improving their presentation skills. In addition, I examined how
students would respond to the measurement of self- and peer-assessments, which seemed to bea new form of assessment to them. Students said that they had not had much experience withsuch assessments, so I encouraged them to reflect on the assessment system as a whole.
Before I started the project, I had heard many stories from numerous teachers working at
various places such as schools and companies that students in Japan were very shy and justread their manuscripts without looking at the audience, and that they did not understandwhat making a presentation truly meant. In fact, I agreed with them that students are usually
shy and I had encountered the same situation in the past. The students I taught did not seemto realize what the purpose of giving a presentation was, or what they should do to make theirpresentation successful. It would not be an exaggeration to say that most students I have taught
in the past are passive learners. It is said to be a part of Japanese culture that people are notencouraged to stand out in a crowd. It may be considered as "general shyness among Japanese
students to take risks" (Hayashi & Cherry, 2004, p.8). Perhaps for that reason, when they standin front of others, they tend to read their manuscript in the same way as others do.
What can I do, then, to help my students improve my students to develop their skills formaking better presentations? I believe that one of the best ways to overcome this difficulty isfor students themselves to become aware of the fact that they are the ones who are responsible
for their own learning. Otherwise students may stay too dependent on teachers and not thinkcritically on their own, try to solve their own problems, or find their way autonomously.
Students have the capacity to take control of their own learning (Benson, 2001; Holec, 1981), soteachers could "open up their hidden possibility" (O'Keefe, 1999, p.23).

I have recently conducted a research project using a self-assessment sheet to improvemy students' speaking ability and had positive results (Yada, Wakui, & Yui, 2004). So, withthat successin mind, I thought that it might work again with the development of students'
presentation skills,although I was not confident about having students conduct peerassessment on their colleague's presentations. My lack of confidence in this situation was
because I had not read many reports related to peer-assessment, especiallyon its effect on
speaking activities in ESL/EFL settings. I also feared that I might have to face unexpected
results. I will never forget my first time to give and receive peer-assessment in one of mygraduate courses, Facilitating Autonomy in Language Learning. The experience was incredibly
astonishing and terrifying at the beginning, but later on I found it to be extremely useful.
I encouraged my students to reflect upon what they did, because I believe that self-awarenessis one of the most important things in the field of ESL/EFL. Kohonen (1992) claims"Onlyexperience that is reflected upon seriouslywillyield its full measure of learning" (p.17). Benson(2001) and Leki (1991) also argue that having students experience reflecting on their language
learning encourages them to take more responsibility for their own learning. Cotterall (2000)
emphasizes that it would be impossible for learners to assess their past learning or plan for
their future behavior without reflection (p.l 16).I thought that teaching techniques on how
to improve presentation skillswould not be enough, because it could compel students to bepassive and they might not fully graspthe intention of what their teacher was saying. If they
themselves were to think aloud, they may think critically and come to realizewhat is necessary
for them to first do. Students would be able to even plan what they should do next. If learners
gain control over planning their studies, it can produce positive results in terms of bothautonomy and language learning (Benson, 2001, p.152).

—

More

Autonomy You

Aski

66

•

Waku iTo sum up, I believe that it would be possible to improve presentation skills simply byusing self- and peer-assessments, if they are conducted properly, and if students becomeaware of their responsibility for their own learning. As such, the students in this class planned,
organized, and evaluated their own learning as well as that of their peers. They reflected onwhat they and their peers did. In short, they acted autonomously to learn effectively. I will
explain in the following section how I incorporated the idea of autonomy to help students todevelop their presentation skills in a student-centered learning environment.
Curriculum-based approach and cooperative learning

On the first day of the course, I had students choose their favorite textbook from the books
I presented to them and also had them decide on the topics they wanted to discuss choosing
from the table of contents. In addition, I had students choose their teammates to work withfor their presentations. Throughout the course, whenever I found an opportunity for students
to make decisions I made every effort. This is because I believe that "learners have the rightto make choices with regard to their learning" (Cotterall, 1995,p.219). In addition, "students
acquire knowledge best when it is related to their own sets of abilities and interests" (Gardner,1993), and also "when they take initiative" (Williams, 2001). Benson (2001) emphasizes that"Curriculum-based approaches to autonomy,"in which it is expected that learners develop thecapability to take control over their learning by exercising autonomously at a number of levels,"are judged effective" (pp.163-170). Some degree of autonomy is vital for learners to become aneffective language user (Nunan, 1997, p.202).
Students teamed up with their friends, conducted research on their favorite subjects, andmade two presentations during the course. Students were engaged in social interaction throughtheir research and cooperation for their presentations, discussions and mini-presentations on
how to be a good presenter before each presentation, and through the filling out of self- andpeer-assessment sheets after watching their performances on video to see how they actually
performed and meeting with their assessors after each presentation. Students were encouraged
to constructively discuss their peer performance to help each other in order to make their sec
ond presentations better. Our intelligence is developed through socialinteraction with others(Andrade & Moll, 1993;Armanet & Obese-jecty, 1981; O'Keefe, 1999). "Co-operative learning
environments will incite learners to articulate their thoughts, connecting them to what alreadyhas been discussed in the group—it can therefore have an activating effect" (Schelfhout, Dochy,& Janssens 2004,p.184).When students are stimulated by their peers and develop the urge togain new knowledge and reflect on it, they are more willing to take more responsibility in theirown learning, which perhaps results in "better learning" (Leki, 1991, p.210). Students could
learn much more with reflection than they would otherwise.
Self-assessments

One weekbefore their first presentations, students discussed in class what they should do to
make their presentations successful and what peer-assessment meant to them. The students
were then informed that they were going to assess their own performance in the presentation.
By presentation day, I had prepared the assessment sheets, which incorporated the students'
ideas. After watching their performances on video on the dayof the presentation,the students
assessed their own presentations using the sheet based on their discussions. The students
repeated the same procedure for the second presentations to seeif there was any improvement
or not.

LD

SIG

2006

Anthology —67•

Developed a u t o n o m y"Assessing themselves facilitates learning, raises students' awareness and enhances goal-ori
entation" (Oscarson, 1989). It is necessary for students to assess their language performance totake control of their learning (Cotterall, 1995,p.224). As they considered the items on the selfassessment list, students became aware of what their weak points were and what they should
do to overcome their weaknesses (Yada et al, 2005, p.6). "Students need to know what theirabilities are, how much progress they are making, and what they can (or cannot yet) do withthe skills they have acquired" (Blanche & Merino, 1989, p.313). Moreover, assessing themselvesis also "very useful to check the syllabus and activities to provide more practical lessons for the
students" (Yada et al, 2005, p.5).
Peer-assessments

Both one class before their presentations and on the day of their presentations, students
discussed what peer-assessment meant to them and what it should consist of. We had adiscussion twice on the peer-assessments over two classes,because I feared that some students
may have been absent the first time I introduced it. I also feared that the peer-assessment, theymight misunderstand the idea of assessing one another by bringing in conventional attitudes
toward peer-assessment, such as when students are expected to give others nothing but praise.
Finishing all of their presentations, students checked items on the self-assessment sheet, but notfor themselves this time, but for their peers.
I assigned each student one presenter to assess, because there was a possibility that one
student might get many assessors and another might get none to give them feedback. In
addition, students had different assessors for each presentation, since they had formed different
groups based on the topic of each presentation. After assessors finished assessing their assigned
presenters, I had them meet their presenters to talk about their presenter's performance to give
advice or suggestions. By doing so, every presenter would understand what one of her peers
thought of her presentation and students could also discuss in detail what the presenters' weak
points or strong points were, and give constructive feedback, if they had any. Rollinson (2005)
states that "peer feedback, with its potentially high level of response and interaction...canencourage a collaborative dialogue in which two-way feedback is established, and meaning is
negotiated between the two parties" (p.25).
I wished to know in more detail how students would reflect on doing peer-assessment
because it seemed totally new to my students as I described in the first section of this paper. In
the next section, I am going to report on students' reflection more in detail.
Students' reflections on peer-assessment

On the last day of the course, I distributed the questionnaire Students' Reflections on Peerassessment based on Saito's questionnaire (2000), to see what students thought of peerassessment as an alternative assessment, how severe they found they were as a rater, howreliable they thought their peers were and whether they liked peer-assessment or not. In
fact, as I mentioned earlier, I was not optimistic about the expected results from using peerassessment, because not much research had been done in a similar situation and I worried

that I might find negative results. I, however, decided to take the risk, because I hoped thatstudents would realize the value and importance of peer-assessment.When explaining tostudents the concept and process of peer-assessment one week before each presentation andagain on the day of both presentations, I emphasized that the purpose of peer-assessment is
not to criticize others, but to help others by giving them good advice, as a "positive constructive—

More Autonomy You

Aski

68

•

Waku icontribution"(Yamashiro & Johnson, 1997, p.16) for their future presentations. Hansen and Liu(2005) contended that some teachers are reluctant to incorporate peer-assessment into theirclasses, because they think it is not effective and takes time, and they have had unsuccessful
experiences. However, if the purpose of the activity is explained to students well enough, it canbe beneficial (Hansen 8c Liu, 2005). They also argue that "when properly implemented, peer
response can generate a rich source of information for content and rhetorical issues, enhanceintercultural communication, and give student a sense of group cohesion" (p.31). In the next
section, I will report on how beneficial the implementation of self- and peer-assessments wasfor both the students and myself.
Findings
Self-assessments

Students submitted a self-assessment sheet twice to evaluate their presentation skills (seeMAYA! website for Appendix 5A). Students knew that the grades they gave themselves intheir self-assessments would not be their final grades. I expected that its aim was for students
to realize what they could do to make their presentations more successful. They were to
determine their goal for their future improvement by repeating the same list and reflecting
on the evaluation. Table 1 shows how students rated their own performances and what thedifference was between the first and the second assessments. On average, they improved by 0.31
points according to their self-assessments. In particular, students realized after they finishedthe first presentations that it was better to prepare visual materials (cf. item nine and elevenin Appendix 5A on MAYA! website), and further developed their presentations for the second
time. It means that they had learned that the aim of the presentation was not just reading theirfindings, but also conveying information and their messages to their audience.
Table 1. Differences between First and Second Presentations in Self-assessments
Item evaluatedPresentation
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Avg.

First

3.79

3.50

4.04

3.33

2.08

3.29

4.42

3.79

1.42

3.96

1.38

4.29

r3.27

Second

3.85

3.19

3.78

3.00

2.00

3.07

4.37

3.78

4.07

4.19

3.44

4.26

3.58

Difference

0.06-0.31 -0.26 -0.33 -0.08 -0.22 -0.05 -0.01

2.66

0.23

2.07

-0.03

0.31

Students, on the first self-assessment sheet, gave 17 kinds of comments related to feelings, regret, and hope, such as "I was shy and tense," "I had no smile on my face," and "I was shocked tofind me talking in a small voice and had no eyecontact on video."All of those students' comments
I edited partially were from students' questionnaires. I had encouraged them to write in English.
As for the second self-assessment after their finishing the second presentations, I found that they
had more kinds of comments, 20 in all, with more detailed and concrete explanations than in thefirst self-assessments. They had regrets, but they had tried to find solutions through reflection:"I should have prepared visual materials.""I should have used some gestures.""I should have pronounced clearly.""We had to make a lot of preparations."

LD

SIG

2006

Anthology

69*

Developed a u t o n o m y• "If I could speak more fluently, I could make a better presentation."
However, they also said they felt a senseof fulfillment:"Our presentation was more successful than before."
In addition, they becamemore highlymotivated and determined to work harder:•"I want to master the presentation skill."
Peer-assessments

In regards to the students' peer-assessments, I had astonishing results. I had expected thatthe students would hesitate to carry out their peer-assessments properly, which would inturn lead to negative results coming out of this project. In fact, the students seemed a little
reluctant to do them at first but they were more enthusiastic about it later, especially during
the process of the second presentations. It may be because they had become accustomed to
the new system or understood my message,"positive, constructive contribution" (Yamashiro
8c Johnson, 1997),peer-assessment was not meant to criticize, but togivegoodadvice to theirfriends. Table 2 illustrates that the students' performances improved by 0.74 points according
to their peer assessors. Notice that items nine and elevenshowed remarkable improvement(see MAYA! website for Appendix 5B). It means that they had become interested in themessage the presenters were trying to convey and the visual materials greatly helped facilitatecommunication.

Table 2. Differences between First and Second Presentations in Peer-assessments
Item evaluatedPresentation
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Avg.

First

4.35

4.35

4.65

3.92

2.46

3.88

4.69

4.38

1.58

4.12

1.77

4.88

3.75

Second

4.53

4.29

4.71

4.00

3.18

3.94

5.00

4.76

4.94

4.76

4.76

5.06

4.50

Difference

0.18

-0.05

0.05

0.08

0.71

0.06

0.31

0.38

3.36

0.65

3.00

0.17

0.74

After students made their respective presentations, I personally discovered some differences
between the two assessments. For the first peer-assessment as a whole, students provided non
specific positive comments to encourage their friends. For example, "I hope you will give a bet
ter presentation next time." They also used the sentences from the list (see MAYA! website forAppendix5 B), such as "The content was clear and easy to understand."As for the second peer-assessment, on the other hand, there was the observed tendency
where the students' comments were very specific (Chauk, 1994,p.184). It was surprising to find"specificcomments" that were almost like or even more concrete than those that may comefrom teachers. For instance, "Good job, great presentation, terrific, successful!""You practiced(prepared) a lot (enough, perfectly)." "You should have confidence." "Thank you, (name)!'was the superb way to continue the presentation." The students also tended to use more polite
language than in their first assessments. "If you make more eye contact, your presentation will
be perfect." "If you can speak more fluently,your presentation will be better." It seemed thatthey tried to give honest opinions, but also be careful not to hurt their peers' feelings. The
details of their comments clearly showed that students paid more attention to the content
of their partner's presentations and got themselves involved. This evidently fostered moreinteraction and discussion between partners after the presentations in order to further clarify—

More Autonomy You

Asks

7o

•

Wakui

and explain the meaning of the comments. In the next section, I am going to write in detailabout how students responded to being peer-assessed.
Students' reflections on peer-assessment

Students responded quite positively to this assessment (see item 6 in Figure 1 and Appendix 5C
on MAYA! website). They were hesitant at very first, but later they seemed to like it as a whole.
As Figure 1 shows, they thought that their peer raters were reliable (item 5). Actually, students'
rating is fairly reliable as Kumazawa (2005) claims. It was also surprising to find that students
found it acceptable that the final grade reflected the peer-assessments (item 1). In short, they
trusted their peers. Moreover, not many students wanted the instructor to be the only grader(item 2). Hatch (1991) claimed, "the more raters, the higher the reliability" (p.533). Students
were severe when they graded themselves (item 3), whereas they were not so severe when they
rated their peers (item 4).

Amazingly,students gave comments more critically than they did for the very first selfassessments. Their comments were not only detailed, but also included many ideas and various
topics as discussed in this section. Some students wrote, "Marking should be based on a varietyof opinions." Others have learned the importance of assessingothers. "What is important is theeffort to evaluate someone's performance properly."It was great that students also understood
the aim of peer-assessments.
4.500

3.375

2.250

1.125

1

2

3
•

4

5

6

Avg.

Item evaluatedFigure 1. Students' Reflections on Peer-assessments.
Some students went on to claim that they would rather receive critical comments rather
than simple compliments."Since only complimentsare usuallygiven, as our teacher said,
I want others to evaluate my performance a little more critically." Others became aware of
the significance of presentation even further. One wrote,"What is important in giving apresentation is that it shouldbe done not onlyfor ourselves to be satisfied, but also for others
to understand." I believethey have learned the real purpose of presentation by experiencing
peer-assessment.

In fact, I had not mentioned the benefits of peer-assessment to my students at all, but many

students went ahead and pointed out the possible benefits. They discovered themselves here
through peer-assessment:
I can see myself objectively.

—

LD

SIG

2006

Anthology —71*Developed a u t o n o m y

I can work on my own weakness.
I can better myself.
I think assessing others is beneficial to ourselves.
When we evaluated others, almost all of us got serious.
In order to evaluate others, we had to listen to the presentations carefully.

Conclusion

In this paper, my focus was on the simultaneous development of learner autonomy andpresentation skills. In conducting this study, I incorporated some features of autonomy such asa curriculum-based approach (Benson, 2001), cooperative learning (Armanet, & Obese-jecty,
1981; Kohonen, 1992; O'Keefe, 1999; Schelfhout, et al, 2004), and reflection (Cotterall, 1995,

2000; Kohonen, 1992; Leki, 1991) using self- and peer-assessments.
In conclusion, I believe that the idea of autonomy would be essential pedagogically, which
would motivate students to learn on their own, and eventually achieve what they wanted.
Therefore, I believe that autonomy can be implemented in a student-centered classroom us
ing not only presentations, but any kind of activity, where choice and responsibility for learn
ing are stressed (Mizuki, 2003). The students may have thought that there would be a certain
level of freedom in the course activities and thus felt more involved in their studies. In fact, five

students wrote in their reflection notes that they were motivated to study harder because they
could choose their preferred text and topics to discuss.

Self-awareness is vital in learning, especially, when trying to improve one's presentation
skills.As Nunan (1998) points out, "self-assessment develops critical self-awareness as a learnerand skills in learning techniques" (Nunan, 1998,p. 116). By checking items on the assessment
sheets and reflecting on what they did, students became aware of what they were lacking andwhere they needed to improve in order to develop their presentation skills. They discovered
their own strategies and they used "self-assessment as aids to self-improvement" (O' Keefe,
1999, p.5). Brown and Hudson (1998) also stated the various benefits of having students
conduct self-assessments.

Self-assessments have a number of advantages. First, self-assessments can be designed to beadministered relatively quickly. Second, they inevitably involve students directly in the assess
ment process. Third, in turn, such involvement may help students understand what it means
to learn a language autonomously. Finally, both the students' involvement and their greater
autonomy can substantially increase their motivation to learn the language in question (Brown
8c Hudson, 1998,p.666).

My students were facilitated to learn more, by repeatedly reflecting on their performance(Kohonen, 1992; Yada et all,2005; Yamashiro 8c Johnson, 1997) and eventuallybecame autono
mous learners. As I mentioned earlier, I believethat Japanese students in Japan can be classified
as passive and less autonomous learners. Presenting may be intimidating to Japanese students,
but with proper education, it would be possible for them to be successful. Teachers should
encourage them to be more active and give them more opportunities to work on their own. I
have confirmed this theory by finding that students become both more active and autonomous
learners if only provided with the opportunities to be so.
Concerning peer-assessment, Cheng 8c Warren (2005) emphasize as follows:More

Autonomy You

Ask; —

72•

Waku I

Peer assessment is believed to enable learners to develop abilities and skills denied tothem in a learning environment in which the teacher alone assesses their work. In otherwords, it provides learners with the opportunity to take responsibility for analyzing,
monitoring and evaluating aspects of both the learning process and product of theirpeers (Cheng 8c Warren, 2005, p.94).

Assessing their peers' presentations helped students realize what should be considered to
improve their own presentation as students. Students commented that they watched theirpeers' presentations more seriously than they did in the past, perhaps because they felt more
responsibility. Students had to be both actors and observers of their own learning (Kohonen,1992). Furthermore, Rollinson (2005) suggests that peer feedback can inspire students to havea collaborative dialog where meaning is negotiated. "Peer response can create a rich source of
information for content and rhetorical issues, enhance intercultural communication, and give
students a sense of group cohesion," if properly conducted (Hansen 8c Liu, 2005, p.31). Thus,
students could become critical and autonomous learners through peer-assessment.
Littlewood (1999) contends,

If we define autonomy in educational terms as involving students' capacity to
use their learning independently of teachers, then autonomy would appear to be an
incontrovertible goal for learners everywhere, since it is obvious that no students,
anywhere, will have their teachers to accompany them throughout life.

Closing remarks

At the early stage of my writing, I received many invaluable comments from my peers. I often
wondered whether I was on the right path or how I could develop my project into somethingoriginal and insightful. One person said to me, "Where is autonomy?" Another said, "Oh, that's
your new approach!" Even though each comment was short, each struck me as if it was a flashof lightning. That must be it! I would think to myself. At each moment, I was reminded timeand again how great it was to have collaborativesupport such as this. I also appreciate my peers
who worked with me to finish this report, which gaveme a hint of pressure but also inspired
me to pursue the challenge further. Without a doubt, I could not have completed this project
on my own.

LD

SIG

2006

Anthology —73*

Developed a u t o n o m y
Critical Reader Response i

Sara Cotterall, Akita International University
I was delighted to be invited to respond to Yoko Wakui's paper for two reasons. Firstly, I tooteach a course which includes peer assessment of students' presentation skills. Therefore I wasable to compare some of Wakui's experiences with my own. Secondly, I have recently been
thinking about the relationship between self-assessment and learner autonomy. Wakui's paper
has helped me clarify my ideas.
Early in her paper, Wakui states that she expected her (Japanese) learners to be passive intheir approach to learning. I have heard such stereotypes a great deal since I arrived in Japan;
whenever possible, I try to challenge them. In this case however, Wakui's own data disprove themyth, as we shall see.
The study's research questions will interest many language teachers. Exploring the impact ofself- and peer-assessment on the development of presentation skills is likely to produce insights
for both learning and teaching. While Wakui's methodology did not allow her to interview stu
dents, her questionnaire findings suggest that learners' awareness of the characteristics of goodpresentations was raised, and their skill levels increased.

Severalaspects of Wakui's research design are worthy of note. Firstly, she encouraged her
students to plan their presentations in pairs. Secondly, she required students to watch andcritique videotaped recordings of their performance, and also to discuss their peers' assessmentof their presentations. I believe that these two aspects of the design optimized the students'
chances of learning from the experience.
However, two questions struck me while reading about the intervention. Firstly, what was
Wakui's rationale for assigning only one student to assess each presentation? In my own class,every student assesses every presentation. I believe this helps students internalize the assess
ment criteria by requiring them to make relative judgments.It also gives them repeated opportunities to exercise their new assessment skills. Mysecond question was- did Wakui provide
any instruction in the skills of presentation, or did she leave students to "find their own way?" It
would be interesting to know what intervention she used, if any.
The improvements in students'self- and peer-assessments reported by Wakui are extremely
positive. (However, based on the examples provided, I could not agree that the second roundof comments were more specific.) The learners report that their understanding of the featuresof effective presentations increased and their awareness of their strengths and weaknesses aspresenters was enhanced. This suggests that reflecting on performance is essentialfor effective
learning.
In concluding her paper, Wakui cites Mizuki (2003) who claims that wherever choice andresponsibility for learning are emphasized, autonomy can be encouraged. Self-assessment liesat the heartof responsibility for learning, since it obliges learners to determine the focus, pace,and direction of theirindividual learning path. In myview, Wakui's study provides eloquent
support for Mizuki's claim.

—

More

Autonomy You

Aski

74

*

Wakui

Critical Reader Response 2

Brad Deacon & Robert Croker

This paper captured our attention initially because we also teach presentation courses and use
presentation within manyof our classes. Moreover, we utilize various forms of self-and peer-as
sessment and have wondered howother teachers are using them as tools for student growth.
In addition to Yoko's three principle research questions, we, too, had some questions before
reading this paper including: 1) would it be too cognitively demanding to add the skills of selfand peer-assessment on top of student's presentation content, presentation skills, and otherlearning skills in this course?, 2) would some students reflect and deliver feedback in ways thatwere either too general to be beneficial, or too direct in ways that might constrict other's open
ness to learning?, and 3) what might the results hold for our students in terms of their own ca
pacity to reflect and develop? We are pleased to say that this paper answered each of the above
questions and more.
In this study, Yoko hands over much of the responsibility to her students to take over andnotice what is salient in terms of their growth through not only assessment of their presentation skills but also their ability to develop greater awareness of their own and each other's
learning processes through reflection. Admittedly, this is a challenging task as Yoko alludes towhen stating that the difficulty of getting her passive,shy students to overcome their barriers
is, "to (first) become aware of the fact that they are the ones who are responsible for their own
learning."
We think she was wise to include multiple opportunities for students to reflect on theirpresentations. Students need time to gain familiarity and comfort with new practices and thequantitative and qualitative results in the second questionnaire clearly show that students ben
efited from repeated exposure. As Yoko points out, there was a positive shift in the rather gen
eral and tentative comments that students wrote in their first assessment forms and the more

specific and less inhibited comments that were evident on the second. This positive trend sug
geststhat students could potentially gain even further from future self- and peer-assessments.
For example, we wonder how the students would develop over a four-year program using sucha method and how these skills may serve them beyond their formal university years?

Yoko gave a great deal of thought and care to the delicate balance between student initiative
and teacher control by not only providing a clear rationale, but also encouraging and support
ing students to assume a more active and responsible role in selecting assessmentcriteria, conducting, and reflecting on their presentation assessment experience. Also, students were given
scaffolding opportunities to graduallybuild their presentation, reflection, and assessment skills
and thus gain more confidence in the process and enhance their awareness. These are usefulpointers for all teachers to consider especially when offering new activities and practices.
As these learners continue their education, begin careers, and form various future relation
ships,we imagine that their experience in this course will give them greater awareness andappreciation of their own autonomy and the capacity to further develop many other skills inorder to function successfully.

—

LD

SIG

2006 Anthology

Part 2: Inquiry into language learners

Minimizing oral
apprehension andstage fright: A report
on developing the oralpresentation skills of
non-native speakers ofEnglishMark Surma
Niigata University of Healthand Welfare
surma@nuhw.ac.jp

Miyuki Usuki
Joetsu University of
Education
usuki@juen.ac.jp

75•

More A u t o n o m y You

Aski

76

•

Surma &

Usuki

About MarkI have been teaching English in Japan for more than 10 years. Myresearch interests include
teacher and learnerdevelopment, development of oralpresentation skills among non-native
speakers of English, and ComputerAssisted Language Learning.

?~-%%mLtcm^W(CALL)Xlro
About Miyuki

I am a Special Assistant to the President at Joetsu University of Education, Niigata, Japan. I
hold a Ph.D. from Edith Cowan University, Western Australia. Presently, I am in charge of a
research project for post-graduate overseas study programs supported by Monbukagakushou(Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology). I am also involved ininternational exchanges between Joetsu University of Education and overseas universities. My
research interests include learner autonomy and learner beliefs in language education andteacher education in Japanese language teaching.
^«ifsm±e®*±##^rfsijM^TTo ^ i x ^ / ' t - x h ^ u T f f l o x f ^ •s\)KDm9YffinXuX7A*m^LX^£to £tz±.M%L^±¥tm?b<D±¥t(Dl£&S#0tfU-7, B*M©^fiiCWTf.
Acknowledgements

First of all, we would like to thank our international students in the Oral Presentation course

for giving us the opportunity to include their feedback in this paper. Many thanks also go to
Miki Kohyama and Eric Skier for their proofreading of our paper and their very encouraging
words. Finally, a big thank you to YokoWakui for her comments.
Abstract

The aim of this paper is toreport on the2004 Oral Communication Courseforpostgraduate students ata national university in Niigata Prefecture, and toreflect on whatwelearned from teaching thecourse.
As well as helping students to improve their oral presentation skills, the purpose of ourproject was tolearn about the learners' needs, how theyinteracted with each other in the international environment,
and how they developed their presentation skills. Through the students' perspectives, we have tried to
improve the course structure andits content throughout the semester andthroughout the 2005academic
year. In the class, wefocused on developing speech ideas in groups, discussing effective methods for
preparation and delivery of various presentations, andgiving briefspeeches. Students also learnt how
toselect, prepare, andpresent an academic paper in their own field ofexpertise infrontofan audience,and take an active participation in the discussion anddebate thatfollowed.
z(Dmx\t. ffimmoimiLAmz&Dz, 2oo4*Eg.<D7<:¥fo&wi<D*—7)v-zi$3.-ir-iy3y<D=i-x\zzj^x^^ufkrzm^(Dms^»^xn^^rzzt\zzo^x^mt^zt^smt-t^<,Z(DXnyx.^b(DSWM,^§L(D^-y)V-7'yify^-y3ymtl^m^;b<D^Xfs.<^7Sm(D=-X m®MfeM%x*foBWL'&^ yy^y^-yay(D7^)i^± .^tzt>^nz>ztxfoz>*^fS-XV-^yj—>'3>T<0MU&fcOViT, MbX/ls-Vyf—yay&tZ>Z.k\Z£.*2T7M—<¥•<&
7^f:j7£7ii-7°ftxm±tf'z>zt\zM&z^xfc, *fc, ^&imft<D&r*iftm<D^mmx*
msiu mmu mm<DMx-m%L, mmmmmtmmizmwx^mz-D^x^/vtL

—

LD

SIG

2006

Anthology —yy•Minimizing o r a l appr e h en s i o n

Introduction

If you have not done so yet,probablyone dayin the future you willneed to speak in front of an
audience of two or more people. By not speaking at all,your relationships with others, and evencareerprospects may be adversely affected. A sad truth is that speaking in front of an audience
for many people can be a real problem. In fact, it has been well documented that when it comesto speakingor presenting in public, many people sufferfrom Communication Apprehension(CA).

Grice & Skinner (2001) defined CA as "perceived fear or anxiety associated with either realor anticipated communication with another person or persons" (p.44). Whalen (1995) goes
further by saying that "the speech anxiety occurs when the speaking occasion has not happened
yet, and the stage fright occurs when the speaker is in front of an audience and fear takes over."(p-93)
Although what we have just said may sound scary to many of us, Whalen, Grice and Skinner
claim that CA is normal and almost everyone experiences stage fright.
Therefore, let us not worry about something that is natural and many speakers experience.
What we need to do, is to approach the topic in a pragmatic way supported by theory. Then,and only then, will our learners be able to minimize their CA and at the same time develop
their presentation skills.
Background

Have you ever thought about what makes one an effective communicator, and why somepeople are better communicators than others? Have you ever thought why some people had somany excellent ideas,but nobody wanted to listen to them? Finally, have you ever thought thatyou too, if desired, could be an effective communicator as well?

There is plenty of literature to suggest that effective communication skills, including public
speaking, although not easily, can be learned by almost anyone (Cole, 1993; Gaulke, 1997;
Moss, 1994; Whalen, 1995; Williams, 1983).

However, there is not much literature on teaching those skills to non-native speakersof
English. In fact this "mishap" is clearly indicated byHaringtonand Lebeau (1998) in Speakingof Speech, teacher's book (p. i). Also, there is a kind of unconscious inclinationby many
authors to simplywrite about how to make or deliver speeches, rather than how to present
to an audience. Harington and Lebeau have made a cleardistinction between speech andpresentation, by saying:

We define "speech" as a language intensive activity. The speaker mayor may not use
visuals. The primary medium of communication is the spoken word.... On theother hand a "presentation" is image intensive. The visuals are the central meansof communication. After all, to "present" means to show.... In a sense, a speech
maximizes the importance of the language. The speaker must be very competent in thelanguage. Presentation, on the other hand, maximizes the importance of visuals andthereby reduces the importance of language competency, (p.80)

With this distinction in mind, wehave decided to construct our own course specificallydesigned for our students. Simply speaking, wewanted to help our international learnersto
masterbasic presentation skills, withoutworrying too much about speech making, and theirlevels of English. Thus,at the end of the course, each student would be able to presenttheir—More Autonomy You

Aski —

78•

Surma &

Usuki

own topicof interest within a certain timelimit. As Williams (1983) puts it,"These days,
audiences expect a speaker to be on hisfeet for about ten minutes, and during this period it is
his job to hold the attention and the interest of his listeners." (p.10)
Therefore, our challenge was enormous,aswehad to prepare our learnersto deliver aten-minute presentation keeping as much of the audience's attention as possible. Taking into
consideration the fact that many the learners in this course came from different countries withdifferent backgrounds, represented different departments and had different interests, scared
us a lot. As a result of such circumstances, in addition to all the theory covered in the class,this course had to present our learners with opportunities to develop their practical skills. We
thought that covering theory alone would be a failure unless students had opportunities to gain
hands-on experience in presenting to an audience. How would we expect one to learn how toswim or to drive a car from reading only a book?
We also had to be careful, as Cole (1993) points out, that we should not try to talk at people,
but talk to people or with people. Therefore, we needed to develop a message by consideringothers' points of view. Questions such as why should the audience listen to us, what they
will gain by listening and how both, the speaker and the listener can be satisfied, should beanswered by each presenter. Then, only after considering these questions, the presenter would
be able to communicate with the audience.

Purpose of the course

As there were many oral assignments planned ahead, such as oral reports on students'
research, or presenting at seminars and lectures, the main purpose of the course was to help
students improve their oral presentation skills. Students were given a number of techniquesand strategies to manage communication apprehension, think critically, research, prepareand deliver effective persuasive messages, understand cultural and gender differences, become
effective listeners, and work effectively individually as well as in a group.

The second purpose of this course was for the teachers to learn how to teach better, how tointeract with people better, and to gain more knowledge about the subject matter. We always
asked our learners not to be selfish to think that they will only learn from us. The teachers are
only facilitators of learning and they want to develop their skills as well, just like anybody else.
In fact, if we wanted our students and ourselves to succeed, we believed that we should be able

to learn from each other whenever we could. Learning should be continuous, not temporary,and not be limited to the class environment only.This is what we have tried to have ourlearners understand.

The participants of the course

The class consisted of 14 postgraduate students from five different countries (including Japan)of mixed technical majors. There were two students from Malaysia, two from China, three
from Thailand, one from Venezuela, and six Japanese students. For this reason, the mode ofcommunication amongst all of the class participants and instructors was the English language.
Despite the fact that all of those students were non-native speakers of English, they werequite fluent in the language. Thisfact however, does not mean that theywere perfect (nativelike) speakers of English. Richards, John &Piatt (1992) define language fluency as"a level ofproficiency in communication, which includes: ... the ability to speak with a goodbut notnecessarily perfect command of intonation,vocabulary, and grammar...." (p.141)

—

LD

SIG

2006

Anthology

79*

Minimizing o r a l app r e h en s i o n. . .

Moreover, the main reason whyall these students enrolledin this elective coursewas to learn
how to present their research findings at conferences, as this was one of their requirements
to graduate. In addition, the learners had to pursue their normal studies and cope with othersubjects as well.
When asked why they had decided to enrol in the Oral Presentation course all the students
gave almost the same reasons:
1. Lack of confidence in English

2. Fear of speaking in front of an audience
3. Fear of not knowing what, how and when to say something, and finally
4. Fear of not being able to handle questions from an audience
From now on we will elaborate on the above points by integrating some practical examplesof activities covered each week in the class.It is not our intention to explain all the theory
covered in the class, but to select only a few examples of practices where the students'
development can be clearly seen. For theoretical background on the topic, the reader shouldrefer to the list of references at the end of this paper, or to any books on oral presentation or
speech making.
THE CONTENT OF EACH LESSON

The period of the course was one semester, and there were 15 180-minute lessons in total. To
fulfil the main purpose of the course, a schedule of weekly activities was set by the instructors.
Throughout the course, the theories behind the oral presentation skills improvement wereintroduced to the students. Based on these theories, various activities were put into practice.
Therefore, the weekly programme was as follows:
Week i: Short interviews in English

The week started with short interviews in English. This was done in order to select only thestudents whose level of English was at least conversational.After the interview, study guides
made by the instructors were distributed, and the course content, including its requirements,
was explained in detail.
Weeks 2 and 3: Communication

Learners were introduced to the "Communication Model" (Sadler & Tucker, 1987), withdetailed analysis of it. They were told that the model is made of three components (source,channel, and destination) and that for communication to be successful, the recipient of themessage had to provide the sender with appropriate feedback.
While describing the model, we were happy to see students' involvementby trying tounderstand what each part of the model was for. They asked us lots of questions; however, one
thing that our learners could not agree with was the feedback. Most of them were under the
impression that once the sender (source) sends the message to the recipient (destination) the
job would be done.
Therefore, in order to stress the importance of the feedback in communication, we decided
to use a very common activity called "Chinese whispers":

A messagewas given to one member of the class who had to whisper it to another person,
who then had to whisper it to another. This had to continue until all the class members had—

More Autonomy You

Aski

8o

•

Surma

&

Usuki

heard the message. Then, the last personwho wrote the message on the board found out that itwas completely different from the original message.
In addition, for those learners who stillhad any doubts about the importance of feedback,an examplewas givenof a person asking another person to buy a tomato sandwich. The result
was that the buyer brought him a ham sandwich.
Week 4: Communication apprehension (CA)Students were told that fear, as previously described, is perfectly normal, and is part of the
body's natural reaction to threat, and that most people experience fear or stage fright (Whalen,
1995,p.93). For those students who were nervous before or during the presentation, themessage was not to try to eliminate nervousness, as nervousness is natural, and can evenquite often benefit the speaker (Greece & Skinner, 2001). This is because, as the authors state,"nervousness is energy, and it shows that you care about performing well." (p. 45)
There was one activity asking learners to introduce themselves in front of the class. They had
only five minutes to prepare the talk and another two to five minutes to present it. This partof the exercise was deliberately administered on our students, so they could experience speech
anxiety and stage fright.
Students were also told of possiblecauses of CAand of possiblesolutions on how to manage
them. In another activity, learners were required to state at least 10causesof their own CA and how
they think they should manage them. The reason for this activitywas that, we believed that once
students became aware of their own problems, it might be easierfor them later to present in public.
Week 5: Non-verbal communication

Have you ever been in the situation where someone was saying something, but you had
a feeling that he or she was not telling the truth, or there was something else odd in thepresentation? Have you ever thought that the reason might have been in the lack of an
appropriate match between his words and his non-verbal behaviour?
There is abundant material on non-verbal communication, and writers sometimes see thetopic from different viewpoints (Harrington & Lebeau, Greece & Skinner, Sadler & Tucker).
This is however not important. What is important is that we do not speak only with our lips;
the way we move, the way we look at people, the way we dress up, everything counts. Simply
speaking, we communicate with our bodies as well. Accordingto Mahrebian (1968) 93% of aperson's message comes from non-verbal communication, 55% come from facial expressions
and body posture, and 38% come from voice qualities.
One of the activities of this course required students to indicate with their bodies thefollowing feelings and emotional states: self-satisfaction, aggression, shame, superiority,
tension, relaxation, etc.

The purpose of this exercise was to experience how reliably we can communicate our
feelings through our posture.
Week 6: Speech making and oral presentation skills

We explained what speeches were for (Sadler &Tucker, 1987) and how a typical speech should
be structured. One of the activities of the lesson required students to implement some of the

speech techniques learned in the lesson, and to prepare a three-minute speech on any topic of
their choice.

LD

SIG

2006

Anthology —8i•Minimizingoral appr e h

e n s i on

Week 7: Oral presentation

This presentation was for three minutes and was videotaped.After the presentation, thevideotape was played back and suggestions on how to improvein the future were made. The
presenterwas also asked to summarize the commentsmade by the audience, and to evaluate
him/herself. For the teacher's record an Oral Presentation Rubric for each student was filled inand collected at the end of the lesson (see MAYA! website for Appendix 6A).
Week 8: Team work and team presentations

Reasons for working in teams were explained while the advantages and disadvantages ofteamwork were discussed. Students were told that a team or a group must have a leader, andtherefore were told of Dwyer's (1993) leadership styles: Authoritarian, Democratic, and Groupcentered. In one of the activities of the lesson, students were asked to state which leadershipstyle was best and why? They were also asked to identify their own leadership style.
There was also an activity on how to handle hostile (including unnecessary) questions. For
example, students in groups of four were given a list of questions (problems) to which they had
to find solutions. Later they had to read their answers out loud and the best answer was chosen
through a discussion and debate among all the members in the class.

Finally,there was an activity on how to get to know your classmates better. Students had towrite down four things about themselves. Three things had to be true; one had to be false. The
goal was to create a believable lie about oneself, something that another person, when meeting
you, would believe to be true. The reason for this activity to be introduced in Week 8, and notearlier, was that we wanted our learners to clearly see that even after knowing their partners fortwo months, it was still impossible to make accurate assumptions about one another.
Week 9: Online seminars

Based on their homework, students presented their Online Seminars. For an Online Seminar,
the students had to search the Internet (for example,YAHOO search engine) on any topic ofinterest, and later report it to the class.The purpose of this assignment was to help students:• Further develop their researching, note-taking, listening skills;•

Get new ideas on presentation techniques, and;•

Increase their overall general knowledge.
Week 10: Listening strategies

Students were reminded that communication was a two-wayprocess and involved active
listening as well. As Sadlerand Tucker (1987) stated, we may be hearing all the time, but
onlyfor some of that time are we actually listening, that is taking in the information, storing,
analysing, or evaluating the content. First, students were asked in groups to list some of thefactors that influence listening skills, and to list how speakers can improve our listening
attention. After identifyinglistening strategies, the major part of the lesson was spent on theactivity called"Listening to PersonalityTapes" (Sadler &Tacker, 1987). It was important thatthe person on the tape was not identifiedby name, gender,or any other specific way. The
purpose of this exercise was to encourage participants to listen attentivelyto the speech and theuse of the voice of the speaker.What we hear when someone speaks, besides the informationof ideas, was the keyquestion. Then, questions were asked about the speaker's gender, age,physical features, job, character, etc.

—

More

Autonomy You

Aski —

82

•

Surma

&

Usuki

Week 11: Discussion and debate

Students were told why debating was important in a democratic society and things to be careful
about. For example, they weretold to use clear language that couldbe understood by everyone
involved, evidence to support what they had to say, be sure of facts, avoid emotionalism, and be
sure not to attack the arguer, but the topic under consideration.

The activity was to conduct a debate in class, either formally or as an open discussion.
Participants were divided into small groups and had to select a topic from a given list or a topic
of their own.

Week 12: Message packaging and message delivery

Quite often presenters seem to be all very wise after the presentation, instead of during thepresentation, and be able to think of all sorts of things to say afterwards. Students were asked
why those sorts of things happen to people and how to avoid them. Regarding the solution to
the above problem, students were told of the importance of strategies to be used by an effective
speaker such as; determining the purpose of his/her presentation; being aware of the audience's
needs; and planning the presentation in three stages: opening, body, and conclusion.
Weeks 13 and 14: Oral presentations

Weeks 13 and 14 were devoted to students' oral presentations and were based on the students'
field of expertise. For their presentations, students were given five to seven minutes. Twice asmuch time was spent on video viewing,discussion, and evaluation. We have adhered to thefollowing steps:•

Student's oral presentation (5 to 7 min.)•Questions and discussion (2 to 4 min.)•Video viewing (max. 5min.)•Student's self evaluation (1 to 2 min.)•Written peers evaluation (1 to 2 min.)Peer evaluations were based on the previously mentioned rubric that was developed by us,
and has been slightlymodified in order to accommodateall the students in the class.
In the rubric, the last column (total score divided by 4) means that the total mark was
divided by FOURevaluators: that is eachstudent was evaluated by two lecturers and two
different students selected at random. The instructors believed that this was the way to evaluate

students fairlyby shifting some authority to students as well.
Week 15: Course overview and course evaluation

This daywas for completing unfinished tasks and the collection of students'assignments andfeedback about the course. The feedback from the students is presented and discussed in thenext section.

Getting the students' feedback

As was mentioned earlier, the secondarypurpose of this project was to learn about the students'
needs, feelings, problems,and how theyinteracted with eachother in the international
environment of the classroom. This was done for the purpose of improving our teaching

—

LD

SIG

2006 Anthology —83•

Minimizing o r a l apprehension

methods, andto gain more knowledge about the subject matter.
In order to elucidate the students' needs, feelings, problems, and theways oftheir interactions,right from the beginning of the semester, weasked students to write their reflections aboutclassroom learning. We recommended that the students write their reflections at home,on thesame day, while their memories were fresh. Students did notneed to worry about being critical,
because theyknewwewerelooking for constructive criticism from them, and that wewanted
to learnaswell. We believed that thiskind of approach would make our students write theirreflections honestly, astheycould see usaspartners in learning, ratherthan as teachers.
Below are the five questions that we asked our learners to reflect on each week:
1. What have you learnt today?
2. What did you like about the lesson?
3. What didn't you like about the lesson?

4. Comment on any difficulties you had today.
5. How would you evaluate your participation in class?

All responses were written in Englishby the students. Some examples of the students'
responses are presented in Appendix 6B on the MAYA! website.
Our learning from the students' feedback

Based on the students' comments it can be clearly seen that it took them two to three weeks
to adjust to the course structure and level. This is evident in the comments such as "somestudents are too quiet in the class," or "the three-hour lesson is too long." However, from thefourth week, almost all the students came to enjoy the lessons to the extent that some students
complained to us that the three-hour lesson was too short. Clearly they wanted to talk more
and be more involved in the classroom activities.

Another finding concerns Question 3 (What didn't you like about the lesson?). Only somestudents answered this question. The majority of the students did not reply to this question, orjust replied with "No difficulties," or "It was OK."

Question 4 (Comment on any difficulties you had today?) was also not answered by many
students. Those students who answered this question complained mainly about their levelof English.With time however, as we progressed with our schedule, students who had earlier
problems with English, tended to relax and feel that making mistakes was part of their learning.
Reflections on the course and suggestions for further studies

It was quite interesting to see how a group of international students could overcome theirEnglish language barriers and work collectively throughout the course. Their eagerness to swap
partners for different group activities, and work on their own, clearlyshowed the learners'
independence from the teacher, and enthusiasm to learn on their own. In groups, students hadtime to discuss things on their own, were not afraid to make mistakes, could learn about eachother more, were relaxed, and therefore could participate in the class even more actively.
Regarding the students' comments, as there were some students who hoped for frequent
two-way communication with us, probably next time instead of waiting almost until the end of
the course, we should collect their reflections at least on a fortnightly basis. This would provide
us, the teachers, with valuable feedback on the course, and in case of a problem or inquiry, it
would allow us to attend to it as soon as possible.

More

Autonomy You

Aski

—

84 * Surma & Usuki

Conclusion

This project was done for two main purposes. The first one was to report on the 2004 Oral
Communication class for postgraduate students at a national university in Niigata Prefecture.
And the other on was to reflect on what we, as instructors, could learn from teaching thecourse. In the course, we focused on developing speechideas in groups, discussing effective

methods for preparation and delivery of various presentations, and giving brief speeches.
From the students' reflections, we have tried to improve the course structure and its content

throughout the semester and throughout the 2005 academic year. It was quite interesting to see
how a group of international students with multicultural backgrounds could overcome theirEnglish language barriers and work collectively throughout the course. Their eagerness to swap
partners for different group activities, as well as workingon their own, clearlyshowed us their
independence from the teacher, and enthusiasm to learn on their own.

—

LD

SIG

2006 Anthology —85•

Minimizing o r a l a p p r e h e n s i o n

Critical Reader Response i

Hiromi Ishikawa

Some people say, "Just try to imagine that yousee potatoes in front of you as an audience andnot a single person listening to you." Other people say, "Write a Chinese character meaning 'a
person' three times on your palm and pretend to swallow those 'people' one at a time. Then you
won't get nervous." OK. Let me try. However, as soon as I start my presentation, I find that theiradvice doesn'tworkfor me. I get frightened and mylegs start to shake. Mytrembling voice
makes me feel embarrassed. This happens even when I speak in Japanese, and in the caseof
English, the level of communication apprehension increases a hundredfold. No exaggeration!
The chapter by Surma and Usukimade me look back on my own past experiences of stage
fright. For this reason, as I read along their paper, I felt like being one of their students.
As a non-native speaker of English, I think that being incompetent in English is the maincause of communication apprehension no matter how much image intensiveness overcomesthe language competency in the presentation. If I had been conducting this research myself,
I might have wanted to include everything in class, that is, both content and skills. However,
Surma and Usuki decided to focus mainly on developing the students' presentation skills
without worrying too much about speech making. Their decision of what to focus on surely
made their teaching procedures step-by-step ones, guiding their students to what they should
learn from class. Also I learnt that their careful analysis of their students' circumstances was
the base of their decision-making. In this way, their teaching procedures and the class content
were carefully chosen and organized by adapting both theory and the students' needs, whichsurely resulted in the students' satisfaction of taking the course.

I liked the idea of "talking to people or with people" by Cole (1993) in their quote. When I
finish making speeches or doing presentations, I just say to myself, "OK. I'm done!" without
considering the audience's feelings. However, thanks to the quote, I now realize that making
speeches or doing presentations are part of bilateral communication. This means that it isessential to learn presentation skills to hold the audience's interest and keep them listening toyou.

I also think that it was good for the students to think about their possible causes ofcommunication apprehension and manageable solutions themselves beforehand. I believethat they could be mentally prepared in advance. I thought about my own stage fright and its
reasons while reading this chapter. The mixed feelings of my strong desire to be a "good"speaker and the anxieties of language incompetence and being less-experienced in public
speech make me feel nervous while I prepare for my presentations or speeches. However, after
all, I am energized by my nervousness to try to put myself on a higher pedestal. I'm glad tofind Greece & Skinner's quote in Surma and Usuki's paper to support my analysis that reads"nervousness is energy."

From my experience, I can say that experience can be also one of the solutions to avoid
nervousness. The point is how teachers can make their students be independent enough to try
in and outside the class. From this point of view, the students' feedback shows that Surma andUsuki's project successfully implemented the importance of being autonomous. This is a great
example of a well-balanced success of teacher and student autonomy.

—

More

Autonomy You

Ask;

86

*

Surma &

Usuki

Critical Reader Responses 2

Nanci Graves

This article provides a valuable reminder that, for a considerable number of people, public
speaking ranks as a major phobia even when done in the native language. It was interesting tonote that allof the reasons students gave for electing to takethe course described in this study

were negative ones, based on recognition oftheir lack of autonomy in thecontext of speaking
in front of an audience in English. Such motivation suggests that theywere admirably seekinga kind of'aversion therapy' in order to confront their fears and build both their presentation
skills and self-confidence, thus increasing their sense of autonomyto handle public speaking
situations with greater courage. As a result, the writers' focus not onlyon providing guidedpractice in effective presentation techniques but also on helping learners analyse their
nervousness and establish a friendly relationship with their audience seems especially
noteworthy. Although nothing can alter the fact that a presentation is always going to involve atest of an individual's communication abilities, learning how to view oneself more objectively
and re-visualize one's image of an audience as supportive listeners rather than threatening
adversaries can go a long waytowards reducing the fear of being judged. This self-reflective
approach could also be used more extensively in general English classes to encourage learner
acceptance of the idea that while it is normal to find communicating in a foreign language adaunting undertaking, nonetheless there are ways to meet the challenge and work throughone's fears with success. The authors have therefore provided a useful model of how to scaffold
learners' development of both inner and outer autonomy in a very clear,systematic, andlearner-sensitive way.
Stacey Vye

This study prompted me the revisit the value of inviting the learner to experience the processof learning theory (in this case presentation skills), integrated with relevant practical weekly
activities, which allows learners spaces in the decision-making. Equally interesting, at theonset of the paper, Mark and Miyuki suggest that speaking in front of an audience is a real
problem, and many people suffer from Communication Apprehension (CA). Subsequently,
the authors interacted with MAYA readers by posing questions about public speaking in the'Background' section. As a consequence, that action helped me to reflect on my own dread of
public speaking. In addition, I thought certainly even the seasoned researcher is concernedwith problem solving in overcoming stage fright and tackling vague questions in their own
language, so these issues would be major concerns for these students presenting in a foreign
language as their comments suggest. For this reason, I was tantalized by the students' feedback
and wanted to know more about their comments. Perhaps it is significant during the beginningof the course some students claimed that three-hour sessions were too long, however after the
fourth week some students complained that the sessions were too short. These comments most
likely were made because Mark and Miyuki assisted the students through carefully thought
out activities that encouraged learner reflection. This helped to naturally allow the students
discover for themselves autonomously which presentations skills they would like to work on,leading them to want more session time to do so.

LD

SIG

2006

Anthology