The study was carried out in 2 semesters, Fall 2009 and Spring 2010. Data collection was completed in 3 hours a week for 9 weeks in TLL and ENG courses each semester.
7 male and 3 female freshmen got involved in the study. Their majors were as follows: 2 Management, 5 Engineering and 3 Social Sciences. Ten subjects, who took TLL 101& TLL 102 and ENG 101 & ENG 102 from the researchers, were identified and approached to get their consent for the study. Oral presentation tasks for TLL and ENG courses were not the same in nature but students were required to do oral presentations which led to whole class discussions. Tasks for both courses were demanding, moreover, students in ENG 101 and 102 were also required to do initial research, to design a power point presentation and to use APA citations on slides.
Researchers jointly designed data collection tools for the oral presentation observations and peer feedback. While students in groups did oral presentations in TLL and ENG classes, both researchers were present and they used data collection tools which focused on research, organization,
138 content, interaction and delivery. Another important aspect of the study 139 was pre and post oral presentation tutorials which were conducted in the
presence of both researchers and upon presenter’s convenience. Post- oral presentation tutorials involved the self reflections of group members which were followed by the researchers’ reflections. These sessions were video recorded if / when the group members allowed. As soon as a group presentation was completed in the classroom, peers (students –audience) provided the presenters with individual feedback online. That is, the class was split into 4 groups and each group gave either content, organization, delivery or language feedback to the presenters. So, each presenter could receive peer feedback in one area from at least 3 or 4 peers.
Results
Results were collated under the following headings due to the nature of data collection tools used:
Content consisted of knowledge of subject material, research, and relevance of information, demonstration of a thorough understanding of the topic, originality of the content or approach.
Researcher feedback and peer feedback have not correlated all the time. For example; even though both researchers scored the same for content in ENG and TLL presentation performance, peer feedback appeared to be low in ENG but high in TLL. Mismatch in originality was also observed.
Regarding in depth understanding of the subject matter and existence of adequate content, researchers’ scores correlated with peer feedback. However, there was a mismatch between the ENG and TLL researchers’ originality feedback, that is, the content of the presentations in TLL was more original as it scored higher than ENG presentations.
Organization meant that the ideas should follow a logical order so they would be understood clearly. Researcher and peer feedback correlated in organization.
Delivery meant that the presenter had to follow oral presentation conventions, speak clearly and follow the academic genre. S/he was expected to adapt her/ his style to the subject, purpose and audience, use effective body language, which were listed as eye contact, tone of voice, gestures and postures.
Researchers have found the presenters slightly more confident when they did their presentations in L1. However, when the use of academic genre was concerned, findings revealed that the presenters were more capable of using academic genre in L2. Use of voice, eye contact, gestures and postures in both languages were the same.
When eye contact gestures and postures were concerned, researchers’ feedback correlated well with eye contact in both L1 and L2. Very low tone of voice and avoidance of eye-to-eye contact with the audience was observed in not only TLL but also ENG oral presentations.
Students had the tendency to read from their notes which was not desirable. Moreover, presenters kept their hands at their sides, performed with a lack of confidence and did not smile during their oral presentations. There was a mismatch between the researcher feedback and peer feedback in these areas.
Use of Powerpoint Presentations and Audio Visual Aids are an indispensable component of any oral presentation. Use of an audio-visual material’s component highlighted effective integration of required audio-video materials by checking their quality, legibility and correct citation. This component was only relevant to ENG 101 and 102 presentations. Researchers’ feedback correlates with peer feedback in effective design but do not eclipse in use. Interaction, which is the ability to interact with the audience, ensures how well the presenter answers the questions. The presenters were more capable in dealing with instant questions and answers in L1 presentations. However, when the number of questions was concerned in overall interaction, presenters tended to be more interactive in L2. Attitude to questions was identified as an area to be dealt with.
Presenters displayed hostility to those who asked questions. They were either extremely defensive or did not answer the questions as desired. Lack of concentration to the answers given in both TLL and ENG presentations was observed.
Language involved fluency, accuracy and choice of subject specific vocabulary. Students were equally fluent and accurate in both L1 and L2 presentations. They have used a variety of subject specific jargon in L1 and L2. Language accuracy for peer feedback was slightly higher in L1 compared to L2. Hence, in L2 they used a wide range of vocabulary from their sources by integrating in-text citations in APA format both on slides and during the delivery.
140 Scovel, T. (1991). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: a review of the anxiety 141
research.In E. K. Horwitz, & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 15–23). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Stout,R., Bryan,C.&Young,T.(2000) SpeakingYourMind: Oral Presentation and Seminar Skills. Longman.
Willis,D. (1990). TheLexicalSyllabus.LondoYıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H., (2005). Sosyal BilimlerdeN nitelAraştırmaYyöntemleri. Ankara:Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: what does language anxiety research suggest? The Modern Language Journal, 75, 426–439.
Yule, G., Powers, M. and McDonald, D. (1992). The variable effects of some task-based learning procedures on L2 communicative effectiveness. Language Learning 42, 249-277.