Online Peer Review of Oral Presentations

Abstract

Peer review has been promoted for decades in order to engage students in the assessment process which then leads to better learning outcomes. This teaching pedagogy is relatively innovative in the Hong Kong language classroom because English as a Second Language (ESL) students are not aware of their responsibility in the language learning process and they think that all assessment-related tasks are the teachers’ sole responsibility. The focus on the language system also hinders the importance of skills. Engaging students in the assessment process is challenging.

In this Innovations in Practice article, the integration and implementation of online peer review of oral presentations into an undergraduate English Literature curriculum will be presented. The aim of the integration is to bridge the gap between tertiary education and the workplace, equipping students with better oral presentation skills. The two-staged setting could encourage learners to reflect on their performance and bring the feedback forward to the next assessment. Being a reviewer and reviewee provided them with opportunities to learn from the enhanced number of exemplars and peer feedback. They could also realize the discrepancies between their own and their classmates’ performances. Such realization allowed them to better understand the assessment requirements and the required skills, and then develop their own personalized plans for improvement before the actual assessment. As a result, they could learn and improve throughout the semester, both inside and outside the classroom. Involving learners in the assessment process and enhancing their assessment literacy seemed to counter-balance the dominance of content-based, summative assessment in the ESL context.

Keywords

Peer review oral presentation self-evaluation peer feedback formative assessment

Introduction

Often when the education system in Hong Kong is analysed, the term Hong Kong ESL Context arises. This refers to a deeply embedded emphasis on students’ linguistic knowledge based on grammar drilling exercises and a dominance of written summative assessments. This intense focus has compelled students to set aside their oral communication skills, in favour of attaining higher grades in the traditional written assessments. This is demonstrated by the large number of Hong Kong undergraduate students expressing their frustrations with speaking assessments, particularly oral presentations, as the most challenging kind of assessment (Evans and Morrison, 2011). It is here then, that the Hong Kong ESL context exposes a need to address the presentation skills of first-year ESL undergraduates.

The process of improving oral presentation skills requires students to first realize their own weaknesses and then develop personalized plans for improvement (Mak, 2019). By engaging students in the assessment process and adopting personalized feedback mechanisms, it becomes possible to counter-balance the drawbacks of the exam-oriented education system (Littlewood, 2010; Ho, 2018). In light of this, the integration of a peer review (PR) strategy into the curriculum seems ideal. PR is already considered a promising student-centric mode of learning which allows learners to monitor and self-evaluate their learning process as well as enhance their assessment literacy.

Although the need for PR may be generally accepted, the process of implementing it within Hong Kong is challenging due to the culturally entrenched belief that assessments are the sole responsibility of the instructor (Carless, 2015). Implementing PR strategies could be considered an innovation because it requires students to change their mindsets and become active participants in their own learning. This article endeavours to show how PR, as an innovation in practice, can be successfully adapted into the curriculum in Hong Kong. Evidence of its viability is provided in the case study of an undergraduate ESL English Literature course.

The Teaching Context

This PR case study took place at an English as the medium of instruction (EMI) university in Hong Kong with an undergraduate elective entitled ‘English in Literature and Film’; a General Education English for Academic Purposes (GEEAP) course. It was available to students that obtained Level 4 or above in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE) English Language, equivalent to 6.31 to 6.51 International English Language Testing System Band Score. This course adheres to the university’s Language and Communication Requirements, which aims to help students become effective communicators by developing their language competence for academic needs. The class itself, divided into two sections, consisted of 24 first-year physiotherapy and nursing students who voluntarily selected this course to fulfil the GEEAP requirement.

In previous years, this course had required students to complete three written assessment tasks in which they needed to critically compare and contrast literary devices adopted in different texts and movies. However, these previous students voiced their dissatisfaction with the requirement that these assignments be written. In response, the teachers began to seek out a different mode of assessment – oral presentations. Through presentations, students might be able to present their analyses more effectively by integrating quotes and images from the literature. Enhancing students’ oral presentation skills would also have a positive impact on their academic success (Mason et al., 2009).

In 2018, the course was formally amended based on the research conclusions of Carless et al. (2011: 398) that ‘a more promising assessment design strategy involves two-stage (or multi-stage) assignments in which two (or more) related tasks form the assessment for a course’. This new course included two oral presentation assessment tasks, each weighing 30% of the final grade. Students conducted the oral presentations in pairs or in groups of three in weeks 9 and 13 of a 13-week course.

Reason for the Innovation

To encourage students to participate in the assessment process and develop them more cognitively in the context of second language speaking, PR was conducted two weeks prior to the actual presentation assessment. It was believed that the reformed curriculum could motivate students to achieve better outcomes in this course as well as to carry forward this learning experience into other tasks and courses. Although the inclusion of PR in secondary schools would be beneficial, it was generally deemed unlikely that secondary students would adapt to learning through PR due to the content-based HKDSE curricula and the keen competition to achieve high grades (Carless, 2015). In contrast, university students tend to be more open to PR, as they have a greater awareness of their own responsibilities in learning. Therefore, the shift from transmission of knowledge to learning how to learn would be smoother in higher education.

ESL students generally know the elements of an oral presentation but lack the fundamental skills behind it (Burns, 2016). As the first stage of skill acquisition is observation (De Grez et al., 2009), the incorporation of PR allows students to learn by observing their peers’ performances. Observing presentations of varying qualities also facilitates students to learn the tacit knowledge of oral presentations, which is difficult to teach explicitly (Sadler, 2010). PR also gives students the time to improve and the opportunities to learn from trial and error and self-evaluation. This process develops students cognitively and encourages them to pay more attention to the learning process, including feedback. When students seek feedback from teachers to fine-tune their improvement plans (Kohnke, 2019), it facilitates the students’ microgenetic development; thereby clarifying misunderstandings and increasing confidence in their learning responsibility (Wilson et al., 2011).

When students assume the dual roles of peer reviewer and peer reviewee, it significantly contributes to the improvement of the presentation. As a reviewer, PR requires the student to understand the rubric, differentiate the level standards and provide peer feedback. By seeing presentations through the teacher’s perspective, students will better understand their own weaknesses and develop personalized plans for improvement (Cho and Cho, 2011). On the other hand, when acting as a reviewee, the student can receive effective peer feedback. Peer feedback has been proven valid (Topping, 1998; Falchikov and Goldfinch, 2000) and can compensate for the problems of high student-teacher ratios and insufficient individual feedback in the Hong Kong system.

Description of the Innovation

This project lasted for a period of two years (four semesters) with different participants each semester. Pilot studies were conducted in the first three semesters in order to refine the PR guidelines and learning materials. Student feedback was collected through the student-staff consultative meeting in order to refine the actual PR implementation and produce a more student-centric experience in the fourth semester. Table 1 summarizes the timeline and results in each pilot. With a more systematic implementation in the fourth semester, semi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate how students learnt from PR and achieved better performances.

Table 1.

Summary of the three pilots.

Trial	Semester	Implementation	Results
1	Semester One, 2018/19	• It was the first time incorporating PR into the curriculum. • PR was optional in this trial run. • Due to the packed syllabus, PR was conducted outside of class. • Students invited their classmates for PR. • The implementation was rather free-flow to avoid extra academic stress due to PR.	• Those who recorded their practice presentations found PR experience rewarding. • Some students expressed that it was difficult to find places for recording. • Peer reviewers expressed difficulties in providing feedback. • Peer feedback was generally insufficient. • Some did not participate because there was no incentive.
2	Semester Two, 2018/19	• PR was compulsory and conducted in class one week before the assessment. • Syllabus was reduced for PR implementation. • A training session on providing feedback was conducted.	• Students generally found themselves more well-prepared for the assessments. • They enjoyed the enhanced amount of feedback. • Some expressed that time was not enough to make improvements. • Some students did not provide feedback to their peers.
3	Semester One, 2019/20	• PR was compulsory and students received 5% for each PR on oral presentations. • PR was conducted two weeks before the assessment. • A sample video was used in the training session.	• Students’ participation was satisfactory. • Time was sufficient for students to make improvements. • Peer feedback was sufficient. • Students wanted to have a consultation session to discuss their improvement plans.

As several studies have proven the benefits of conducting PR online (Lee et al., 2017; van Popta et al., 2017), an application called Gongyeh was adopted. Being designed specifically for oral assessments, this application, with video recording and rubric integration, allows students to provide anonymous and time-synchronized feedback. Figure 1 shows the application’s interface. By using Gongyeh, reviewees could enhance critical self-reflection skills by repeatedly watching their performances with feedback (De Grez et al., 2009). The synchronized feedback alerts the presenter to specific moments of their presentations that had problems and also helps to delineate major from minor issues by the frequency of consistent feedback from the audience. Overall, this method of feedback was more effective than traditional peer feedback on paper.

Figure 1.

User interface of ‘Gongyeh’ adopted in peer review.

With reference to the feedback in the three pilot studies, a process model, as shown in Figure 2, was developed to facilitate a two-staged PR throughout the semester.

Figure 2.

Process model of two-staged peer review for ESL students.

The process model divided PR into three phases for each oral presentation assessment. In Phase 1, students studied assessment tasks holistically and understood how each assessment was relevant to each other. The teacher also had to draw the students’ attention to certain important skills in order to counter-balance the examination-oriented education to which they had been accustomed. Students should also know how to handle the oral assessment tasks from a macro perspective.

Phase 2 required students to produce practice presentations in front of their classmates two weeks before the actual assessment. During PR, students reviewed both themselves and others through the rubric, as shown in Table 2. The experience of undertaking these two roles helped students to develop a greater understanding of expected standards in the assessment. Furthermore, it assisted them in discovering their weaknesses and setting goals for personal improvement.

Table 2.

Oral Presentation Assessment Rubric.

Content	• Opening • Focus • Examination/Analysis • Research and Integration • Referencing • Timing
Delivery	• Transition • Clarity and Accuracy • Non-verbal Gestures • Use of Visual Aids
Language	• Range and Accuracy • Tone and Style
Pronunciation	• Accuracy and Appropriacy • Fluency

In Phase 3, consisting of four steps, students were given two weeks to make improvements and to critically review their performance on Gongyeh.

Step 1: Learning from Exemplars

Providing peer feedback allowed participants to learn from the presenter’s good work, while also avoiding any similar mistakes (Figure 3). Carless et al. (2018) also suggest that using exemplars in ESL assessments can be a promising option for students to understand what constitutes a good performance. In the case of this study, it appeared to work satisfactorily in the second language speaking context.

Figure 3.

Learning from peers’ exemplars.

Step 2: Developing Evaluative Judgements

Prior to the actual oral presentation assessments, students were required to produce their own practice presentations as well as participate in the development of the rubric and other feedback criteria with the teacher. This collaboration in the assessment criteria helped to strengthen the students’ abilities to evaluate the discrepancies between their own work and their peers’ performances.

Step 3: Developing Self-assessment Skills

As suggested by the work of Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006: 207), students were given the time and the opportunities necessary to create a more structured plan in PR for ‘self-monitoring and the judging of progression’. From this, they were able to develop their self-assessment abilities which then led to stronger improvement plans. Aided by Gongyeh, students considered the development of these personalized plans to be most effective. It should be noted that this opportunity to reflect upon their previous work would likely not have been offered in the traditional examination-oriented education system.

Step 4: Dialogue with Teachers

Even after considering the knowledge and experiences gained in the previous steps, the students still had insufficient expertise to maximize their learning effectiveness. In the final step, students are expected to engage the teacher in discussing any problems in their oral presentation or their improvement plans. It is from this two-way conversation that the gap between the conceptual and linguistics representations seems to be satisfactorily closed (Dipper et al., 2005). The entire experience would then be brought forward to Phase I of the next oral presentation assessment.

Reflection

In the actual implementation period (second semester of 2019/20), 18 students from the two classes were divided into three groups and voluntarily participated in group interviews after each PR exercise. The interviews lasted between 48 and 62 minutes with the purpose of gathering students’ feedback on PR and to discover how they improved their performance. Thematic analysis was adopted to analyse the interview data.

Paralinguistic Knowledge

The PR process allowed students to see assessment tasks from new perspectives. Learning from the audience’s perspective seemed to enhance their awareness of paralinguistic features in oral presentations, as the following student comments show:

Non-verbal elements are quite important in oral presentations. (S6/1)

I wasn’t sure if my intonation was effective. Now I have a better picture. (S9/2)

In typical ESL classrooms, the focus tends to be on linguistic knowledge rather than paralinguistic knowledge. In the case of these students, they received some information about non-verbal elements in oral presentations, however it was admittedly difficult to illustrate through normal class materials. It was the use of Gongyeh that compensated for the lack of multimodal features in the traditional lecture notes.

The Shift from Outcomes to Process

In an education system that favours content-based curriculum, students will of course primarily rely on memorization of content, rather than seeking a greater understanding of knowledge in a holistic manner. During this study, it became evident that it was the students’ evaluations of issues or discrepancies that pushed them to understand the importance of the multidimensional soft skills. The following comments illustrate:

His intonation was flat. I must be more conscious about this next week. (S6/2)

The stress on cause-effect words actually could make the content more audience-friendly. I will do that next time. (S13/2)

With an appropriate time gap between PR and the assessment task, as well as an enhanced sense of the relevance of the tasks, students were willing to spend the time and effort needed to improve their skills. This addresses the drawback of traditional post-assessment feedback as students are now further motivated to make improvements.

Developing Self-assessment Skills

While first-year undergraduates find it difficult to self-assess their speaking skills (Evans and Morrison, 2011), the experience of PR could augment students’ intrinsic motivations by encouraging them to tackle presentation problems and monitor their outcomes. Students could judge their progress on Gongyeh as well as seek advice from teachers.

If PR can encourage students to discuss assessments with teachers, then the low motivation levels in Hong Kong, due to customarily high-stakes assessments, could be positively affected. Responses from interviewees demonstrate this issue:

I was too ambitious. My teacher’s advice on my timeline was useful. (S11/2)

I report my progress to my teacher during the consultation session. She gave me some tips to make my plans more effective. (S17/2)

Once students are able to develop their own personalized learning plan, it allows them a unique perspective of the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach in the examination-oriented environment to which they were so accustomed (Ho, 2018). Throughout this PR process, the students’ efforts to revise and improve their oral presentations became evident. This may be attributed to their new vantage points and increased motivation.

Future Pedagogical Directions

The results from this research study appears to show that ESL learners were able to improve their oral presentation skills after being brought into the assessment process itself. The use of Gongyeh, the two-staged setting and the relevance of the assessment tasks encouraged them to monitor and self-evaluate their performances and develop personalized plans for improvement. The students’ feedback was generally positive and the integration of PR into the curriculum appeared to motivate students to do better throughout the entire process.

In order to motivate students, it seemed most beneficial to provide incentives. For example, to ensure quality, 5% of the assessment score could be devoted to the quality of peer feedback or perhaps their efforts to make improvements (Carless, 2015). This weighted feedback could ensure participation, prompt more preparation for providing feedback, articulate their views with sufficient explanation, and encourage disciplinary dialogues with peers. Students can reflect on their performance and explain how they address the peer feedback. This attention to feedback can further help students to transfer their skills to other subjects.

Changing student mindsets to recognize the value in formative feedback requires certain motivations. Apart from giving clear and detailed instructions, teachers should always be approachable and provide a positive learning environment. Since both oral presentations and PR are relatively new tasks to first-year undergraduates, specific individual feedback from teachers can motivate and advance student performances. Teachers might also consider the amount of information students are expected to reflect upon and direct them to focus on only one or two achievable categories. This also helps to establish a sense of accomplishment and motivates them to value the formative feedback along the process.

If assessments are predicated on the development of processes, then perhaps the assessment of participation is a more appropriate measure. This has been a controversial issue within education as the grading of participation can be difficult to ‘measure’ and the reliability can be low (Carless, 2015), but it should also been seen from a quality assurance perspective. If stakeholders realize that assessing participation encourages student engagement and active learning, a different position may emerge. As long as the students’ contributions and participation can be assessed by well-defined criteria, it will be a useful part of an overall curriculum and assessment design.

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Eric HO

References

Burns

(2016) Research and the teaching of speaking in the second language classroom. Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning 3: 242–56.

Carless

(2015) Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher Education 69(6): 963–97.

Carless

Chan

KKH

Barrett

(2018) Developing students’ capacities for evaluative judgement through analysing exemplars. In: Boud

Ajjawi

Dawson

Tai

(eds) Developing Evaluative Judgement in Higher Education: Assessment for Knowing and Producing Quality Work. London: Routledge, 108–16.

Carless

Salter

Yang

Lam

(2011) Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education 36(4): 395–407.

Cho

(2011) Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science 39(5): 629–43.

De Grez

Valcke

Roozen

(2009) The impact of an innovative instructional intervention on the acquisition of oral presentation skills in higher education. Computers & Education 53(1): 112–20.

Dipper

Black

Bryan

(2005) Thinking for speaking and thinking for listening: the interaction of thought and language in typical and non-fluent comprehension and production. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(3): 417–41.

Evans

Morrison

(2011) Meeting the challenges of English-medium higher education: the first-year experience in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes 30(3): 198–208.

Falchikov

Goldfinch

(2000) Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research 70(3): 287–322.

10.

LME

(2018) Improving ESL formative assessment practices and student learning via multi-staged peer assessment of oral presentations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bristol, UK.

11.

Kerby

Romine

(2009) Develop oral presentation skills through accounting curriculum design and course-embedded assessment. Journal of Education for Business 85(3): 172–79.

12.

Lee

Yeung

(2017) University English language learners’ readiness to use computer technology for self-directed learning. System 67: 99–110.

13.

Littlewood

(2010) Chinese and Japanese students’ conceptions of the ‘ideal English lesson’. RELC Journal 41(1): 46–58.

14.

Kohnke

(2019) Exploring critical pedagogy and choice in EAP material development: a case study. The Journal of Asia TEFL 16(4): 1218–30.

15.

Mason

Williams

Cranmer

(2009) Employability skills initiatives in higher education: what effects do they have on graduate labour market outcomes?. Education Economics 17(1): 1–30.

16.

Mak

SHY

(2019) Analysing the needs of EFL/ESL learners in developing academic presentation competence. RELC Journal. Epub ahead of print 28 November. DOI: 10.1177/0033688219879514

17.

Nicol

Macfarlane-Dick

(2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31(2): 199–218.

18.

Richards

(2015) The changing face of language learning: learning beyond the classroom. RELC Journal 46(1): 5–22.

19.

Sadler

(2010) Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35(5): 535–50.

20.

Topping

(1998) Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research 68(3): 249–76.

21.

van Popta

Kral

Camp

Martens

Simons

PRJ

(2017) Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review 20: 24–34.

22.

Wilson

Collins

Couchman

(2011) Co-constructing academic literacy: examining teacher-student discourse in a one-to-one consultation. Journal of Academic Language and Learning 5(1): A139–53.