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 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.

 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 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 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 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)

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 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

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.

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 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 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 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.

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 TESOLJournal, 8(3). Retrieved November 1, 2007 from http://iteslj.org/Lessons/King-PublicSpeaking.html

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. 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