The Asian EFL Journal, March/2008, Volume 10, Number 1

Factors Predicting Effective Oral Presentations in EFL Classrooms

Junko Otoshi
Gunma Prefectural Women's University, Japan

Neil Heffernen
Ehime University, Japan

Junko Otoshi currently teaches at Gunma Prefectural Women's University in the

Department of International Communication. Her research interests include second
language writing studies and testing/evaluation.

Neil Heffernan is an Associate Professor at Ehime University. His research interests

include testing/evaluation and CALL.

Abstract
This paper outlines a study that explores what factors EFL learners consider to be
important when making presentations. 304 undergraduate students were surveyed at a
large private university in Japan. A 30-item questionnaire was used to discover what
components are considered to be important to learners in doing effective English
presentations. Descriptive statistics and principal component analysis were used to analyze
the results of the data. The results indicate that the participants consider the following
three factors as the major criteria for effective English oral presentations: clarity of speech
and voice quality; correctness of language; and interaction with the audience. Based on the
outcome of the study, this paper further delineates the pedagogical implications for oral
presentations in EFL.

Keywords: Oral presentations; peer evaluation; peer-assessment; feedback; autonomy.

Introduction
As an alternative form of assessment, peer assessment has been utilized in oral
presentation activities in various educational contexts (Boud, Cohen & Sampson, 1999;
Patri, 2002). Echoing with the concept of a student-centered approach to instruction,
students can take an active role in their own language learning through the use of peer
assessment activities. Opposed to teacher-only assessment, oral performances can also be
evaluated from the views of learners’ peers. Obtaining feedback from peers is vital to
communicative language learning situations like oral presentations because of the notion
of interaction between learners (Earl, 1986; Rust, Price & O’Donovan, 2003). Furthermore,
students can achieve a higher level of learning through interaction with their peers and
instructors (Earl, 1986; Rust et al., 2003).
Thus, peer assessment is considered an important activity to develop students’ learning

65
 The Asian EFL Journal, March/2008, Volume 10, Number 1

and to facilitate autonomy among learners. In most classrooms, however, the assessment
criteria are already established by the classroom teacher, with students’ ideas not
incorporated into these pre-existing rubrics. This lack of student input might lead to a low
reliability of peer assessment. Because students are not well aware of the description of
each evaluation criterion, some students might not be able to assess their peers’
performances properly. As a result, their views might be different from those of their
instructor. Additionally, pre-existing criteria might deprive students of the aforementioned
benefit of increased autonomy from peer assessment activities because they are not
involved with establishing the criteria. Therefore, it is useful to explore students’ views of
which aspects of oral presentations are most effective which, as a result, will become the
criteria of peer assessment activities. In doing so, instructors will find out what aspects of
oral presentation students consider important. Defining and creating the evaluation rubric
together with their instructor, learners will gain more responsibility for their learning as
well as to improve the reliability of the peer assessment activities themselves.
The present study explores exactly which aspects of oral presentations Japanese
university students view to be most effective. Incorporating students’ ideas while
establishing the criteria for presentations is an important factor when considering a
learner-centered approach in EFL classes. Therefore, this paper will suggest specific ideas
as to how to carry out oral presentation activities using a student-established evaluation
criteria. A description of Japanese university students’ views on effective presentations
will yield valuable data both for oral presentation activities and their assessment. A
secondary aim of the research is to suggest a set of specific recommendations to improve
peer assessment activities for oral presentations in ES/FL classrooms.
To summarize the above, the primary focus of this research is as follows: to make
learners more cognizant of the importance of presentation skills in English; to get learners
more involved in the evaluation process; to urge learners to think about the criteria that
form an effective presentation; to have learners involved in the formulation of the
evaluation criteria; and have learners receive evaluation from their peers as well as reflect
critically on this method of measurement and how it effects their own oral presentations. It
should be noted that this paper should not be considered exclusive to the Japanese context.
In fact, the fundamental concepts and results of this paper can be applied to most Asian
contexts and beyond.

66
 The Asian EFL Journal, March/2008, Volume 10, Number 1

Review of the Literature

There has been a marked increase in the popularity of peer-evaluation activities in EFL
classes (Cheng & Warren, 2005; Finch, 2003; Hadley, 2001; Johnson & Johnson, 1999;
King, 2002) due to the increasing number of teachers emphasizing the importance of
communication skills in the classroom (Hadley, 2001; King, 2002; Nunan, 2002; Richards
& Rodgers, 2001). Thus, teachers need to become more cognizant of the principles and
methods of peer evaluation. EFL students, especially in business fields, are well aware of
the impact of competent presentation skills in English. In fact, students who are preparing
for the working world tend to take presentation classes as a part of their regular degree
programs (Nakamura, 2002). However, to date, most of the work in peer evaluation has
been done in ESL and EFL writing classes (see Duke & Sanchez, 1994; Hedgcock &
Leftkowitz, 1992; Pica, 1984; Lalande, 1982; Zamel, 1985), so a more thorough look at
peer assessment for EFL oral presentations is warranted. Advocates of peer assessment
highlight learner autonomy as one of the benefits of conducting this type of evaluation
(Cheng & Warren, 2005; Johnson & Johnson, 1999), as each student takes responsibility
for his or her own active learning (Cheng & Warren, 2005; Patri, 2002). Thus, learners can
become more cognizant of exactly what they are learning through peer assessment
activities. In addition, there is a general consensus that involving students in their own
correction is helpful in developing skills useful in academic life (Cheng & Warren, 2005)
and enhancing interpersonal relationships among learners (Earl, 1986). A combination of
teacher-, peer-, and self-evaluation seems to yield the most successful results (Bachman &
Palmer, 1989; Hadley, 2001; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1982; Lalande, 1982). However, in
spite of the usefulness and reliability of peer evaluation (Freeman, 1995; Hughes & Large,
1993; Patri, 2002), it remains an area of EFL that has not been well researched, as seen in
the dearth of theoretical and empirical studies published in this emerging field of study
(Patri, 2002).
Zamel (1985) maintains that teachers’ feedback on ESL compositions is at times
inconsistent. Cohen (1985) suggests that teachers’ comments on student work are
confusing and vague, while Truscott (1996) came up with similar results stating that
teachers should abandon correcting student errors altogether. Hedgcock and Leftkowitz
(1982) state that more attention is paid to content and organization in peer-evaluated work;
two very important elements in the evaluation of oral work. Indeed, it seems teachers tend
to focus on form and accuracy when marking, so getting learners to conduct
peer-evaluation has the potential of circumventing this problem. The problems of
67
 The Asian EFL Journal, March/2008, Volume 10, Number 1

traditional feedback methods found by these researchers clearly have implications for the
classroom, and points to the need for a more useful evaluation method. Peer evaluation
offers a remedy for these problems.
Although teachers will always feel the need to correct their learners’ work, a balance
needs to be found between teacher-assessed work and work that is peer-evaluated. In a
traditional teacher-centered classroom, students tend to adopt a passive attitude toward the
assessment of their oral performances because they are being rated by a single person: the
teacher. Further, the evaluation criteria are usually set by the teacher, so learners have no
input into the grades they receive. One method around this is to have learners involved in
the creation of the assessment rubrics to be used in class (Patri, 2002).
This evidence points to the fact that it is the type of feedback given to learners that is
of ultimate importance. Peer-evaluation gives the benefit of learners learning from their
peers, while being actively involved in their classmates’ work (Birdsong & Sharplin,
1986; Cheng & Warren, 2005). Indeed, peer-evaluation tends to have a double-pronged
effect: it helps the evaluator notice errors, and also assists the presenter in learning where
he or she can improve.
Another related factor is the possibility that students not trained in the art of peer
evaluation may demonstrate problems that have been outlined in the literature. For
example, previous studies have indicated certain biases – such as friendship bias – may
exist when learners evaluate their peers (Dochy, Segers & Sluijsmans, 1999; Falchikov,
1995; Morahan-Martin, 1996). If learners are explicitly taught the form and practice of
peer evaluations, this problem can be remedied quite easily (Finch, 2003; Jacobs, 1987;
Newkirk, 1984). Therefore, giving our learners the correct tools to undertake
peer-evaluation activities has the potential to greatly enhance the reliability and usefulness
of such activities.
Oral presentation assessment criteria consist of multi-faceted factors: language,
content, delivery, and visual aids. It is incumbent among teachers to clearly delineate these
factors to their learners before undertaking any peer assessment activities in class. In a
classroom setting, the criteria for assessment are usually established by the teacher, who
also has the responsibility of judging students’ presentation performances. However, this
single rater practice raises reliability issues (Bachman & Palmer, 1989). As such, there is a
good possibility that an instructor’s assessment is not objective or consistent enough to
meet the needs of his or her learners. The consensus among researchers is that if learners
are explicitly aware of the criteria used to assess them they will be better able to apply the
68
 The Asian EFL Journal, March/2008, Volume 10, Number 1

method of evaluation to their own learning styles, and thereby to their own benefit as
learners (Rust et al., 2003).
Further, students are able to comprehend and critically assess marking criteria that
they have a hand in making, and have more difficulty comprehending marking criteria that
are imposed on them by teachers (Orsmond, Merry & Reiling, 2000). The development of
the criteria is just as important as the assessment itself, so great care must be taken by
learners when considering just how to mark their peers (Erwin & Knight, 1995). However,
the criteria must be presented in an operational manner that is understandable to students;
a process the students themselves can have a hand in creating (Dochy et al., 1999).
Lastly, it has been found that learners demonstrate extremely positive attitudes
towards peer-evaluation activities (Birdsong & Sharplin, 1986; Cheng & Warren, 2005;
Duke & Sanchez, 1994), and that such activities can foster intrinsic motivation and
confidence in the language learner (Finch, 2003). Accordingly, learners actually enjoy
evaluating each other’s work, and have much to gain from performing this activity. Indeed,
Topping (1998) maintains that learners evaluate their peers in a comparable manner to
their teachers, which suggests it is worthwhile for teachers to seriously consider using
peer-evaluation activities in class. However, learners must be given the correct tools to do
so, and need to be trained accordingly before undertaking any serious peer-evaluation
activities (Cheng & Warren, 2005).

Participants
This study was conducted in the Autumn of 2005 at a large private university in Japan.
Some 304 freshman undergraduate students voluntarily participated in the study. The
students were studying in the Economics, Business Administration, and Science and
Engineering faculties. All students were taking an oral presentation class, which was a
required subject in their English course as indicated by the questionnaire.

Research Methods
The aim of the study is to explore what kinds of oral presentations Japanese university
students consider to be effective. In order to answer the research question, an attitude
survey was conducted. Descriptive statistics and principal components analysis using
SPSS13.0 were employed to interpret the results.
The questionnaire was developed based on the literature review and informal
conversations with university students and EFL specialists who have taught oral
69
 The Asian EFL Journal, March/2008, Volume 10, Number 1

presentations in both EFL and ESL contexts. The questionnaire consisted of thirty items
across the following evaluation criteria of oral presentations: eye-contact; voice; English;
originality of content; clarity; Powerpoint; body language; and time management (see the
evaluation rubrics in Appendix 1). The criteria and the description of the rubrics were
modified for this study by identifying common rubrics from related studies (e.g., Cheng &
Warren, 2005; King, 2002; Nakamura, 2002; Patri, 2002).
In order to spread the responses from the participants out (Likert, 1932), item
statements were categorized into positively and negatively phrased statements. Each item
was measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale (for positive statements, from 1= strongly
disagree to 5= strongly agree; and for negative statements the coding was reversed).
Chronbach’s alpha was checked to establish the reliability of the instrument developed for
gathering the data for the study. This figure was determined to be .843, and thus reliable.

Results of the Descriptive Analyses

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of 30 items that dealt with university students’
attitudes towards effective oral presentations in English. Item 23 (A presentation should be
given in a clear voice) demonstrates the highest score and the participating students most
agree with this statement. On the other hand, Item 28 (I don’t mind grammatical mistakes
in a presentation as long as the message is clearly delivered to the audience) has the lowest
score among the thirty statements. This item was phrased negatively so the scale was
reversed to properly measure students’ attitudes towards effective oral presentations in
English. It was noted that the participant students tended to agree with Item 23,
demonstrating that they accepted grammatical errors by their peers.

Table 1: Results of the Descriptive Statistics (N= 304: Max.=5 Min.= 1)

Item Statement Mean SD
1. Presentation topics should be interesting to the audience. 4.18 .85
2. Smiling is not good while giving a presentation 4.07 .92
3. A presentation should be given in an organized way. 4.45 .75
4. Glancing at a transcript is not good while giving a presentation. 3.31 1.05
5. Using signal words such as “First” and “Second” are important when 3.62 .85
giving a presentation.
6．Using PowerPoint is not necessary when giving a presentation. 4.08 .92
7. Speakers should avoid using difficult terms when giving a presentation. 3.90 .98
8. Speakers should just speak about whatever they want even if the audience 4.41 .83
does not understand it.
9. Good presentations include detailed examples and reasons. 4.28 .71
10. I don’t mind if I find grammatical errors in a PowerPoint presentation. 3.55 1.09
11. Speakers should pay attention to the audience’s response while they 3.79 .88

70
 The Asian EFL Journal, March/2008, Volume 10, Number 1

speak.
12. A PowerPoint presentation does not have to include statistical data 3.97 .88
when speakers mention numerical information.
13. Speakers should argue their own ideas or possible solutions in their talk. 3.91 .87
14. A good PowerPoint presentation includes pictures and photographs. 4.05 .83
15. Speakers don’t have to speak fluent English. 2.70 1.00
16. Oral presentations should be given in informal language (as opposed to 3.05 .97
a formal, written style of language).
17. Speakers should stick to the objectives of the presentation without 4.25 .67
confusing the audience.
18. Speakers don’t have to finish the presentation within an allotted time. 3.75 1.06
19. Speakers don’t have to act cheerfully when speaking. 3.91 1.20
20. Speakers should make eye-contact with the audience. 3.81 1.00
21. Speakers don’t have to outline the presentation objectives to the 4.26 .86
audience.
22. The size of the letters in a PowerPoint presentation should be easy to 4.29 .77
read.
23. A presentation should be given in a clear voice. 4.47 .71
24. The speaker should use some body language while speaking. 3.71 .88
25. A presentation should be given in a clear voice. 4.03 .88
26. Speakers should pay attention to the speed of the speech. 4.15 .82
27. Speakers should speak with confidence. 4.28 .80
28. I don’t mind grammatical mistakes in a presentation as long as the 2.63 1.11
message is clearly delivered to the audience.

29. A presentation should be delivered with correct pronunciation. 3.35 .93

30. Speakers don’t have to speak loudly. 4.10 .85

Results of the Principal Components Analysis

In order to ascertain what kinds of oral presentations the participants consider to be
effective, a principal component analysis with a varimax rotation was carried out using
SPSS13.0. Regarding the salient value for a component loading, we examined Tabachnick
and Fidell (1996) who proposed a rule of thumb that loadings of .30 (absolute) or above be
used to specify variables that load on each component, and Steven’s (1996)
recommendation that using loadings which are approximately .40 (absolute) or higher for
identifying variables that load on a particular principal component. Also, in a sample of
300 (Stevens, 1996), factor loading of .298 (.149 X 2) at alpha =.01 and above are
required for practical significance. In a practical sense, selecting factor loadings of .40
meets the criteria. We decided to choose the vale of .40 in order to select the components.
As a result, three components were retained and interpreted as follows:
1. Factor 1 has the largest number of loadings from 9 variables (items 3, 8, 9, 17, 21, 23,
26, 27, and 30), accounting for 22.8% of the total variance. Items 3, 8, 9, 17, 21, and 22
dealt with comprehension of speech. Items 23, 26, 27, and 30 are all related to the
speaker’s voice quality. Therefore, Factor 1 was labeled as Clarity of Speech and Voice

71
 The Asian EFL Journal, March/2008, Volume 10, Number 1

Quality.
2. Next, the variance of Factor 2 drops sharply on the scree plot, and accounts for 6.84 %
of the total. It received loadings from 4 variables (items 10, 15, 28, and 29). All of these
items are concerned with the English language itself, so this group was labeled
Correctness of Language.
3. Factor 3 received loadings from three variables (items 11, 20, and 24). These items
dealt with the speaker’s attention to the audience. Therefore, it was labeled Interaction
with the Audience.

Table 2: Results of the Principal Component Analysis

Factor Loading Items
Factor 1 .709 3. A presentation should be given in an organized way.
(Clarity of .451 8. Speakers should just speak about whatever they want even
speech and if the audience does not understand it.
voice quality) .468 9. Good presentations include detailed examples and reasons.
.572 17. Speakers should stick to the objectives of the speech
α= .855 without confusing the audience.
contribution .675 21. Speakers don’t have to outline the presentation objectives
ratio: to the audience.
22.8% .799 23. A presentation should be given in a clear voice.
.527 26. Speakers should pay attention to the speed of the
presentation.
.685 27. Speakers should speak with confidence
.540 30. Speakers don’t have to speak loudly.
Factor 2 .660 10. I don’t care if I find grammatical errors in a PowerPoint
(Correctness presentation.
of language ) .602 15. Speakers don’t have to speak fluent English.
.700 28. I don’t mind grammatical mistakes in a presentation as
α= .605 long as the message is clearly delivered to the
contribution audience.
ratio: .617 29. A presentation should be delivered with correct
6.84% pronunciation.
Factor 3 .763 11. Speakers should pay attention to the audience’s response
(Interaction while they speak
with the .608 20. Speakers should make eye-contact with the audience.
audience) .451 24. The speaker should use some body language while
α= .668 speaking.
contribution
ratio:
5.22%

Discussion
From the results of the present study, three components were identified to influence
Japanese university students’ views on effective oral presentations: Clarity of Speech and
Voice Quality; Correctness of Language; and Interaction with the Audience.

72
 The Asian EFL Journal, March/2008, Volume 10, Number 1

Regarding Factor 1, Clarity of Speech and Voice Quality, it was noted that participants
judge an effective presentation on the combination of clarity of the presenter’s
presentation and his or her voice. Thus, in the process of making evaluation rubrics,
teachers should pay attention to this factor by incorporating examples of good
presentations and by demonstrating a clear and understandable voice. It is suspected that
some students, especially those in the lower levels of proficiency, may confuse the clarity
of speech component with that of a person who simply just speaks with a loud voice.
Therefore, teachers must explain the component items of Factor 1, and how clarity of
speech and voice quality can positively impact an oral presentation. This will serve to act
as guidance for learners striving to become more effective presenters.
With respect to Factor 2, Correctness of Language, from the results of the descriptive
statistics, participants in this study tended to be tolerant of grammatical errors during oral
presentations. Although the students might not put serious emphasis on the correctness of
language, the fact that it is included as a component here carries some weight. Component
items of this factor involve the accuracy of speech and pronunciation. This factor is
considered important for the preparation stages of oral presentations, and can be dealt with
by teachers in class by clearly explaining the implications of these criteria to their learners,
so they can factor this into their evaluations. Further, when preparing to assess their peers,
learners should be made aware of the significance of the correctness of language criteria.
Thus, learners can prepare transcripts of their presentations, which can then be checked by
their peers. The presenter’s peers can then focus on grammatical accuracy and vocabulary
use. This will ensure that a complete understanding is obtained by both presenters and
their peers.
Factor 3, or Interaction with the Audience, refers to the physical attention the presenter
gives to the audience. As outlined in Table 2, this physical attention involves eye-contact,
body language and paying attention to the audience’s response to the presentation. It can
be a difficult task to judge exactly how much eye-contact and body language is sufficient
in oral presentations in the Japanese EFL context. This is partly due to these factors not
being strongly rooted in Japanese culture (Lusting & Koester, 2003). However, with
practice, teachers can assist learners in overcoming potential problems in these areas by
reiterating that in real world situations presenters are expected to pay attention to the
audience because the presentation should be aimed at the target audience (Lucas, 1997).
Teachers can demonstrate and stress the importance of presenter-audience interaction, and
learners can prepare for evaluating their peers’ interaction with the audience with adequate
73
 The Asian EFL Journal, March/2008, Volume 10, Number 1

training. This can be done by teachers and students in class: by giving both good and bad
examples of presenter-audience interaction.

Conclusion and pedagogical implications

Based on the results of this study, we can draw some conclusions about recommendations
on how to best prepare our learners for oral presentations. As teachers, we can prepare our
learners to be aware of the above criteria (Table 1 and Table 2) and the effect they have on
the efficacy of oral presentations in EFL classrooms.
In light of the work done on peer assessment in writing classes and elsewhere, a more
open approach to our learners’ evaluation is needed (Rust et al., 2003). One suggestion is
to use an integrated method of feedback: one in which learners write an outline for their
presentations first, evaluate each others work, and then make their presentations based on
the corrections given by their peers. Learners then do their presentations in-class while the
teacher and the other students evaluate that presentation using rubrics they have had a
hand in creating (Cheng & Warren 2005; Orsmond, Merry & Reiling, 2000).
Consequently, learners from the present study stated that these methods were
exceptionally useful in assisting them in becoming more proficient at making oral
presentations. Specifically, comments from learners suggested that if teachers take time to
demonstrate how and when to use eye contact, how to organize a presentation, connect
with an audience, use body language and manage time, and how to construct an effective
PowerPoint presentation, the learners can build upon their existing knowledge to use in
future presentations. Methods that seem commonplace to most teachers are not so to
learners in our classes, thus we must ensure we expend the correct amount of time and
energy into giving our learners the tools they need to become effective presenters in the
target language. Students wanting to improve their competence in this area of language
study will surely benefit from such training.
Along these lines, the first step is for teachers and learners to establish a marking
criteria. Involving learners in this process will be of great benefit to them in preparing for
their own presentations (Orsmond, Merry & Reiling, 2000). Secondly, learners must
clearly understand the criteria set out for evaluating presentations. Teachers can carry out
practice sessions with their learners by having them watch and evaluate past presentations
on video. Teachers need to monitor that learners are using the criteria correctly and
applying the tenets of the rubric in an accurate manner. Third, after the appropriate
training has been completed (which may take two to three class periods), students prepare
74
 The Asian EFL Journal, March/2008, Volume 10, Number 1

their presentations (individually or in groups) with the criteria they helped create firmly in
mind. Next, learners evaluate their peer’s presentations with the rubric they helped create.
Finally, after the presentations are completed, learners receive their evaluation from their
peers and reflect on their performance and how to improve on it. All of this can serve to be
extremely useful not only to the learners in our classes, but also to teachers using these
techniques in EFL presentation classes.
The question remains as to exactly what constitutes good spoken performance in the
EFL classroom? For the purposes of EFL classes and in general, the authors deem it vital
for learners to be able to communicate their message to the audience in a convincing
manner. Thus, grammatical correctness is not of the utmost importance (as noticed by its
absence in the rubric in Appendix 1). What are most important are the objectives,
organization and presentation of the speech, as well as the communication of both the
message and of the presenter with his or her audience. These are factors which can
literally make or break an oral presentation in the EFL classroom. As teachers, we must
inform our learners of their importance, practice them repeatedly, and then reiterate
exactly how they can affect the overall message in a presentation.
Peer evaluation can be a valuable method in assisting EFL learners in how to properly
structure English oral presentations. By taking part in peer evaluation activities, learners
gain a firm knowledge of the form and process of what makes an effective oral
presentation. By involving them in the process of actually creating the rubrics to be used
in evaluating their peers, we are giving our learners an opportunity gain independence
while learning more about exactly what makes a successful presentation.
Future research should focus on surveys that target instructors’ ideas of what
constitutes a good oral presentation, since there is bound to be some differences in attitude
between students and instructors over what constitutes a good oral presentation. For
instance, native instructors of English might have different criteria from those of their
students due to cultural differences. Discovering the differences between the two groups
will become a stepping stone that will lead to more effective instruction in EFL oral
presentation classes. In accordance with the notion of a student-centered approach, both
teachers and students should negotiate with each other over their views on oral
presentations.
As argued earlier in this paper, performing an oral presentation is a complicated task
that involves multi-faced language characteristics. To enhance the reliability of oral
presentation activities, they should be evaluated by both teachers and learners. They are
75
 The Asian EFL Journal, March/2008, Volume 10, Number 1

useful to both groups interested in utilizing classroom peer evaluation activities as a

method of improving learners’ knowledge of exactly what makes an effective oral
presentation in English. Therefore, interaction with both sides is necessary so that peer
evaluation can be considered a useful and effective communicative activity in EFL
language learning contexts.

References
Bachman, L.F., & Palmer, A.S. (1989). The construct validation of self ratings of
communicative language ability. Language Testing, 6, 14-29.
Birdsong, T., & Sharplin, W. (1986). Peer evaluation enhances students’ critical judgment.
Highway One, 9, 23-28.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413-26.
Cheng, W. & Warren. (2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing,
22(1), 93-119
Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback of their compositions. In A. Wenden
and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer-, and co-assessment
in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-35.
Duke, C., & Sanchez, R. (1994). Giving students control over writing assessment. English
Journal, 83, 47-53.
Earl, S.E. (1986). Staff and peer assessment: measuring an individual’s contribution group
performance. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11, 60-69.
Erwin, T.D. & Knight, P. (1995). A transatlantic view of assessment and quality in higher
education. Quality in Higher Education, 1(2), 179-188.
Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Innovations in
Higher Education, 11(2), 146-65.
Finch, A. (2003). Reflective instruments for self-assessment in Korean EFL classrooms.
The Korea TESOL Journal, 6(1), 63-86.
Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by groups of group work. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 20, 289-300.
Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.

76
 The Asian EFL Journal, March/2008, Volume 10, Number 1

Hedgcock, J., & Leftkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/oral revision in FL

writing instruction. Journal of second language writing, 1(3), 255-76.
Hughes, I.E., & Large, B.J. (1993). Staff and peer-group assessment of oral
communication skills. Studies in Higher Education, 18(3), 379-85.
Jacobs, G. (1987). First experiences with peer feedback on compositions: student and
teacher reactions. System, 15, 325-33.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1999). Cooperative learning and assessment. JALT
Applied Materials Cooperative Learning, 164-178
King, J. (2002) Preparing EFL learners for oral presentations. The Internet TESOL
Journal, 8(3). Retrieved November 1, 2007 from
[Link]
Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern
Language Journal, 66, 140-49.
Likert, R.A. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of
Psychology, 140, 5-53.
Lucas, S.E. (1997). The art of public speaking (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Lusting, M.W. & Koester, J. (2003). Intercultural competence interpersonal
communication across cultures (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn&Bacon
Morahan-Martin, J. (1996). Should peers’ evaluations be used in class project?:
Questions regarding reliability, leniency, and acceptance. Psychological Reports, 78,
1243-50.
Nakamura, Y. (2002). Teacher assessment and peer assessment in practice.
Education Studies, 44, 203-215
Newkirk, T. (1984). Direction and misdirection in peer response. College
Composition and Communication, 35, 301-11.
Nunan, D. (2002). Listening in language learning. In J.C. Richards & W.A.
Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching (pp. 238-241). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2000). The use of student derived marking
criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,
25(1), 23-38.
Patri, M. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self-and peer assessment of oral
skills. Language Testing, 19(2), 109-31
Pica, T. (1984). Second language acquisition theory in the teaching of writing.
77
 The Asian EFL Journal, March/2008, Volume 10, Number 1

TESOL Newsletter, 18(2), 5-6.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rust, C., Price, M., & O’Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students' learning by developing
their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, 28(2), 147-164.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York:
Harper Collins College Publishers.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review
of Educational Research, 68, 249-76.
Truscott, J. (1996). Review article: The case against grammar correction in L2 writing
classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-69.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-101.

Appendix 1: The rubric for Judging Speech Quality

Eye-contact rapport with, and sense of the audience
Voice show confidence; appropriateness of pace;
volume; and articulation
English clear pronunciation ; appropriate use of vocabulary
good structures/register; conciseness; and
clarity of expressions
Originality of good choice of topic; clear objective/ purpose statement;
Content and unique ideas about the chosen topic
Clarity good connection of ideas; appropriate use of
signal words; well structured; clear conclusions
PowerPoint attractive; appropriate use of paragraphing,
headings, numbering, spacing, and illustrations.
Body Language appropriate gestures to keep audience’s attention
Time Management Management of the allocated time of oral presentation

78