.

Students’ Perception of the Interactive

Oral Presentation from their Lens of Assessment

An Undergraduate Research Paper

Presented to the Faculty Members of Kumalarang National High School

Kumalarang, Zamboanga del Sur

In Partial Fulfilment

Of the Requirements in Practical Research

School Year 2022-2023

By

Jeremiah II G. Bellan

Jabal Annur D. Engcong

Lunce Gabrel S. Gabiso

Assyquille Jade D. Dacula

Algie G. Maisog

Leah G. Maisog

June 2023
 ii

Abstract

This research paper aims to explore students' perceptions of interactive oral

presentations, specifically from the lens of assessment. With a growing emphasis on interactive

learning and communication skills in education, oral presentations have become a common

assessment method in various academic settings. However, little research has focused on

understanding how students perceive interactive oral presentations as an assessment tool.

The study adopts a qualitative research design, using a survey questionnaire with a

diverse sample of undergraduate students. Through thematic analysis, the data collected from

the survey reveals valuable insights into students' perceptions of interactive oral presentations.

The analysis highlights key themes related to the assessment aspect of these presentations,

such as fairness, transparency, validity, and learning outcomes.

This research contributes to the existing literature by shedding light on students'

perspectives regarding interactive oral presentations as an assessment method. By

understanding these perceptions, educators can make informed decisions to improve the design

and implementation of interactive oral presentations, ultimately enhancing the learning

experience and outcomes for students.

 iii

Acknowledgements

This remarkable achievement stands as a testament to the unwavering spirit of

countless individuals who have devoted themselves to this pursuit, navigating numerous

sacrifices and triumphing over formidable challenges. As we humbly and wholeheartedly

dedicate this work, we are profoundly grateful to the extraordinary individuals who have served

as constant sources of inspiration.

First and foremost, we express our deepest gratitude to our parents and guardians,

whose unwavering support and unconditional love have laid the foundation upon which our

aspirations have flourished. Their tireless encouragement, sacrifices, and unwavering belief in

our potential have propelled us forward, filling our hearts with boundless gratitude.

Furthermore, we extend our heartfelt appreciation to our classmates and circle of

friends, whose unwavering camaraderie and invaluable assistance have provided a guiding light

during moments of adversity. Their steadfast presence, shared experiences, and collaborative

efforts have illuminated our path during times of uncertainty, infusing us with strength and

resolve to overcome the obstacles that stood in our way.

Above all, we offer our heartfelt thanks to our God Almighty, the source of all blessings,

whose divine grace and favor have been bestowed upon us throughout this arduous journey.

His boundless love, unfathomable mercy, and infinite wisdom have served as our guiding light,

providing us with the strength, courage, patience, and guidance needed to navigate the

challenges we encountered. We acknowledge His ever-present hand, His benevolent guidance,

and the countless blessings that have sustained us during the realization of this work.

With deep gratitude in our hearts, we recognize that this achievement would not have

come to fruition without the collective contributions of exceptional individuals. Among them, we
 iv

extend our profound appreciation and gratitude to Ma;am Marelou Pasquil, our esteemed

research adviser, whose expertise, commitment, and guidance have shaped the direction and

quality of our work. We also express our heartfelt thanks to Sir Alimuddin O. Gani, our dedicated

section adviser, whose unwavering support, encouragement, and insightful feedback have

significantly influenced the development and refinement of our research. Additionally, we

express our gratitude to Sir Luhiller Recaforte, our esteemed chairman panelist, whose

invaluable input, critical evaluation, and thoughtful suggestions have immensely contributed to

the rigor and credibility of our work.

We acknowledge and honor the immense contributions of Ma’am Marelou Pasquil as our

research adviser, Sir Alimuddin O. Gani as our section adviser, and Sir Luhiller Recaforte as our

chairman panelist. Their unwavering support, mentorship, and expertise have been pivotal in

shaping our research and inspiring us to strive for excellence. This work stands as a testament

to the transformative power of their guidance, highlighting the significance of their selfless

investment of time, knowledge, and expertise in ensuring the success of our endeavor.

-The Researchers
 v

Dedication

This study is wholeheartedly dedicated to my beloved parents, Who have been our

source of inspiration and gave us strength when we thought of giving up, who continually

provide their moral, spiritual, emotional, and financial support.

To our co-researcher who shared their words of advice and encouragement to finish this

study.

And lastly, we dedicated this research to the almighty God, thank you for the guidance,

strength, protection and for giving us a healthy life.

All of there, we offer to you.

-Leah G. Maisog
 vi

Dedication

To express my thanks to all those who contributed in many ways to the success of this

study and made it an unforgettable experience for me.

To Our God Almighty who is always there when we were in need. Thank you for guiding

us and giving us strength in our everyday life. Thank you for always looking out for us and being

there for us. Thank you for all making of this happen and ended it with a good outcome. I love

you, Lord God.

To my dear parents Julito C. Gabiso and Maricel S. Gabiso, thank you for giving me the

support to reach my dreams. Accomplishing this would hopefully make you proud of me as

much as I am proud of having you as my parents. I love you, mama, and papa.

I would like to sincerely thank our advisers, Ma'am Marelou Pasquil and Sir Allimudin

Gani for your guidance, support, and patience throughout this study. I apologize for being a

headache to you when I was doing this study.

-Lunce Gabrel Gabiso

 vii

Dedication

I humbly dedicate this piece of work to my loving parents Mr. Teopanes P. Maisog and

Mrs. Vergie G. Maisog for their endless guidance and support and to my friends for their

inspiring piece of advice.

I also dedicate this to my co-researchers for encouragement and determination.

Above all, to almighty God who always give me strength, knowledge, and wisdom in

everything I do.

-Algie G.Maisog
 viii

Dedication

I dedicate this research paper to my beloved family for their guidance, support and love,

to my friend's, cousin's thank you for your support too

I also dedicate this To my co-researcher especially to our PR leader Mr. Jeremiah

Bellan for his understanding and kind leaders, to the other members thank you for your

cooperation to finish this study, to our research adviser Ma'am Pasquill thank you for guiding us

in this subject and to our classroom adviser Sir Gani for who guide and teach the other parts of

the research.

Lastly, I dedicate this research paper to our almighty God who give me strength to this

research paper.

-Jabal Annur D. Engcong

 ix

Dedication

This research paper is lovingly dedicated to our respective parents who have been our

constant source of inspiration. They have given us the drive and discipline to tackle any task

with enthusiasm and determination. Without their love and support this research would not have

been made possible.

We also dedicate this research paper to our research adviser Mrs. Pasquil who never

failed to teach and guide us, to our family who supports us in everything, to our friends who

helped us finished this project, to our co-researchers mostly our research leader Jeremiah

Bellan for being patience and understanding on us, and most of all to the Almighty God who

gives me strength and good health while doing this.

-Assyquille Jade D. Dacula

 x

Dedication

I sincerely dedicate this work to my beloved parents, Mr. Jeremias and Mrs. Carmen

Bellan, for their unending guidance and support, as well as to my friends and co-researchers.

My parents have been the unwavering pillars of strength throughout my academic journey,

providing me with not only the necessary financial support but also the emotional

encouragement to pursue my research ambitions. Their belief in my potential has been a

constant source of motivation, propelling me forward even in the face of challenges.

The camaraderie and teamwork that we have cultivated throughout this research

endeavor have been instrumental in our collective success. The countless hours spent

discussing ideas, troubleshooting experiments, and providing feedback have forged strong

bonds of friendship and mutual respect. Each co-researcher has brought their unique skills and

expertise to the table, contributing to the multidimensional nature of this work. I am profoundly

grateful for the trust, dedication, and unwavering support demonstrated by my co-researchers.

Our shared commitment to academic excellence and the pursuit of knowledge has been a

driving force behind our accomplishments. I am humbled and privileged to have had the

opportunity to collaborate with such talented individuals.

This dedication is a heartfelt recognition of the invaluable contributions made by my

parents and my co-researchers. Without their guidance, encouragement, and determination, this

research would not have reached its full potential. I am forever grateful for their unwavering

belief in me and their commitment to excellence. This work stands as a testament to the power

of collaboration, mentorship, and the bonds we have formed along this transformative journey.

-Jeremiah II G. Bellan
 xi

Table of Contents Page

Title Page…………………………………………………………………………………………………… i

Approval Sheet…………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………… iii

Acknowledgment…………………………………………………………………………………………… iv

Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………………….. v

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………………… vi

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………………… vii

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………. viii

Chapter 1…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1

Problem and its Setting……………………………………………………………………………………. 1

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………………………… 3

Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………………………………. 4

Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………………………… 6

Scope and Delimitation………………………………………………………………………………… 6

Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………………………. 7

Definition of Terms……………………………………………………………………………………. 7

Chapter 2…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

Review of Related Literature…………………………………………………………………………. 8

Chapter 3…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10

Research Design………………………………………………………………………………………. 10

Research Environment…………………………………………………………………………………. 10

Research Respondents………………………………………………………………………………… 11

Research Instrument…………………………………………………………………………………… 11

Sampling Techniques………………………………………………………………………………… 11
 xii

Data Gathering Procedure……………………………………………………………………………. 12

Statistical Treatment……………………………………………………………………………………… 12

Chapter 4…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13

Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data………………………………………………….. 13

Students Demographic Profile………………………………………………………………………… 13

Students’ Sex………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13

Students’ Age………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

Male students’ Perception on the Interactive Oral Presentation……………………………………. 15

Testing the 19

Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………………………..

Chapter 5……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23

Summary of Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation………………………………………… 23

Summary of Findings……………………………………………………………………………………. 23

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………… 25

Recommendation……………………………………………………………………………………….. 25

References ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27

Appendix A – Permission to conduct a study………………………………………………………….

Appendix B – Research Instrument…………………………………………………………………….

Appendix C – Data Set…………………………………………………………………………………..

Plagiarism Result…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Curriculum Vitae……………………………………………………………………………………………
 .

Chapter 1

Problem and Its Setting

Introduction

Oral presentations, if properly guided and organized, provide a learning experience and

teach lifelong skills that will be beneficial to English as a second language students in all school

subjects, and later in their careers (Meloni & Thompson, 1980). One tangible way that educators

have assessed proficiency in this area is through prepared oral presentations. While some use

the terms oral communication and oral presentation interchangeably, other writers question the

role more formal presentations play in the overall development of oral communication skills.

Communication is a dynamic interactive process that involves the effective transmission

of facts, ideas, thoughts, feelings and values. It is not passive and does not just happen; we

actively and consciously engage in communication in order to develop information and

understanding required for effective group functioning. It is dynamic because it involves a

variety of forces and activities interacting over time. The word process suggests that

communication exists as a flow through a sequence or series of steps. The term process also

indicates a condition of flux and change. The relationships of people engaged in communication

continuously grow and develop. Communication is an exchange of meaning and understanding.

Meaning is central to communication. Communication is symbolic because it involves not only

words but also symbols and gestures that accompany the spoken words because symbolic

action is not limited to verbal communication.

‘Oral assessment’ includes any assessment of student learning that is conducted, wholly

or in part, by word of mouth. Oral assessment in its many forms has a long history. It dominated

assessment up until at least the 18th century at Oxford and Cambridge (Stray, 2001). As
 2

students experience these and reflect on them, they will become familiar with their particular

purposes and structures (Morton & O’Brien, 2005).

Adding to the discussion, this paper was part of a larger study examining the knowledge

and skills students bring into the academy from previous educational experiences. The study

examined some of the teaching and assessment methods used in secondary schools to develop

oral communication skills through the use of formal oral presentations. Specifically, it will look at

assessment models and how these are used as a form of instruction as well as how they

contribute to an accurate evaluation of student abilities. The purpose of this paper was to

explore and identify tensions between expectations and practice. Placing the emphasis on the

‘oral’ aspect of this form of presentation this paper will particularly look at the ‘delivery’ element

of the process.
 3

Conceptual Framework

Students’ Perception Oral

Presentation
 Sex
 Age

Implication of Students’

perception of the Interactive

Oral Presentation as a Form

of Assessment

Figure 1. The Schematic Diagram of the Study

 4

Theoretical Framework

Rhetoric provides historical significance when investigating oral communication. In

particular, it has a strong link to educational practices dating from the early Greeks where it was

seen as a “powerful force” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 1990) This led Aristotle to refer to rhetoric as:

“The faculty of discovering in any particular case all of the available means of persuasion”.

The scope of Rhetoric has changed, reduced, expanded and, essentially, reincarnated

over the years. Today, distinctions are often made between what is termed ‘classical rhetoric’

and a broader understanding that places “virtually all forms of discourse and symbolic

communication” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 1990) under a rhetorical banner. But to simply relegate

classical rhetoric to the ability to speak well is a misrepresentation of the extremely important

and ongoing contribution of this period. As Bizzell and Herzberg (Dance, 1990) state, these

early scholars explored the complex connection between “language” and “knowledge” which

has remained a central academic concern.

The connection between language, knowledge and speech is a fundamental

consideration of this study. In particular, it provides a way of positioning the term public

speaking not as a heightened, competitive or even artificial form of speaking but what students

are being required to do each time they deliver a prepared oral presentation. Over the centuries,

rhetoric has often been relegated to issues of style over substance. Such terms as

‘ornamental’2 ‘cosmetic’3 or even ‘showy’ have been used in reference to rhetoric. In particular,

Cicero’s canon of delivery became synonymous with “effective gestures and vocal modulation”

(Bizzell & Herzberg, 1990.). While this definition is part of the delivery process it fails to connect

how something is said to what is actually said. This concern is also apparent with prepared oral

presentations for assessment when judgements on an overall presentation are divided into

knowledge of the subject matter and the public speaking skills used to deliver it. It does not take
 5

into consideration the knowledge that is needed about effective speaking to be able to make

decisions concerning how best to deliver a message to an audience.

It is with this in mind that the researchers approach matters of assessment. Chohan and

Smith (2007) define oral assessment as: “the process of assessing a person’s oral presentation

style and their ability to support their arguments/opinions effectively through the use of spoken

communication”. Following a similar line, Joughin (2003) suggests that there are “two different

kinds of qualities that can be measured by oral assessment” Joughin (2003) lists these as: The

command of the oral medium itself, that is, the student’s oral skills of communication in general

or language skills in particular; and The command of content as demonstrated through the oral

medium. Chohan and Smith and Joughin (2007) do not simply divide oral assessment into

content and delivery but rather propose that part of the assessment process involves evaluating

a student’s ability to orally make a message. The ‘content or ‘argument’ of a student’s

presentation is ‘supported’ or ‘demonstrated’ through ‘spoken communication’ (‘oral medium’).

Dance (2002) explores this idea further suggesting that instead of limiting discussion to content

and delivery it is more important to concentrate on a speaker’s thoughts and how these

thoughts are expressed. Seven years ago, Dance criticized many North American university

public speaking courses as only focusing on public speaking skills (Dance. 2002). He questions

teaching such skills when the main indicator of success is how well the student performs during

the final presentation. Dance (2002) favors an approach where a student’s ability to apply

critical thinking is evidenced through overall development in public speaking skills. His

comments are particularly directed towards assessment considerations: “It is easier to critique

eye contact than to isolate and critique logical strength. It is easier to reduce vocalized pauses

than to maximize a regard for evidence appropriate to the subject and audience” (Dance, 2002).

Rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of

figures of speech and other compositional techniques.

 6

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to determined students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation

as a form of assessment in Kumalarang National High School, School Year 2022-2023.

Specifically, it answers the following questions;

1. What is the students’ perception in interactive oral presentation in the class considering the

following dimension;

1.1. Sex

1.2. Age (16-19)

2. What is the Implication of Students’ perception towards their academic performance?

Scope and Delimitation

The study determined the perception of the students’ Interactive Oral Presentation as a

Form of Assessment. The respondents of this study was limited to 40 and the respondents

came from Grade 11 Humanities and Social Science (HUMSS) and Grade 12 Accountancy,

Business and Management (ABM) students of Kumalarang National High School, School Year

2022-2023. This research used descriptive research, and the researchers utilized a purposive

sampling technique. The researchers encountered some challenges to find respondents who

met the specific criteria for the study. Perhaps the researchers had a certain number of

respondents in mind or needed individuals with specific characteristics. Regardless, the process

of identifying suitable candidates proved to be difficult. This had been be due to a variety of

factors such a difficultly in reaching out to potential respondents. However, despite these

obstacles, the researchers remained persistent in the pursuit of finding the right respondents to

ensure the validity and accuracy of the study results. Researchers specifically selected the

academic track as their chosen pool of respondents due to the prevalent engagement of

individuals in this field in oral presentations. This deliberate selection ensures that the
 7

respondents possess valuable experience and expertise in oral communication within an

academic context.

Significance of the Study

The study's key findings might be extremely compelling and beneficial to the following

individuals, groups, and institutions.

Students. It can assist students in reflecting on their oral recitation skills and relating to

their fellow students.

Teachers. It can improve the Oral Presentation of the teachers and accurate explanation

with the students.

Future researchers. They will greatly benefit from this because it will serve as a guide for

their initial research.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defining conceptually and/or operationally to give a better

understanding of the study.

Age. This refers to a period of human life, measured by years from birth, usually marked

by a certain stage or degree of mental or physical development and involving legal responsibility

and capacity.

Assessment. This refers to the process of observing a sample of a student's behavior

and drawing inferences about the student's knowledge and abilities.

Interactive. This refers to an exchange of ideas where two or more participants, whether

human, machine or art form, are active and can influence one another.

Oral Presentation. This refers to the activity done by the students in subjects doing oral

recitation in the class, specifically on oral presentations.

 8

Sex. The socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles, and

relationships of and between groups of women and men.

Students’ perception. This refers to the process of preferential treatment of students

toward information they get from an object.

 .

Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature

The need to develop effective oral communication skills is a common theme across the

education literature. For Young and Travis (2004) it will enable us “to move through life with self-

confidence and a feeling of accomplishment” while Jackie Manuel (2004) takes it further by

suggesting that such skills will enable us to become “co-creators of the world”. She lists a

number of desirable traits that will be gained including the ability to “think, reflect and articulate

experience”. At its most basic level oral communication can be described as the “effective

expression of thoughts, feelings, and ideas in oral form” suggests Green River Community

College (2005).

There are numerous speaking opportunities to be considered when looking at the need

to develop effective oral skills, from small group discussions to speaking in front of many. In

recent years, lists of essential graduate capabilities for future employment have included the

need for good communication skills (both written and oral). These lists are often presented as

evidence why such skills need to be developed. Work-related activities are diverse, from formal

presentations to participating in teams (Crosling & Ward, 2002) to attending job interviews,

chairing meetings and speaking at seminars (Emden & Becker, 2004). Knight and Yorke (2006)

sum it up by stating that “oral communication is considered to be a core aspect of employability”

(Chohan & Smith, 2007).

The benefits of effective oral communication skills are not just limited to employment;

many writers extend relevance to “personal” situations as well (Levin & Topping, 2006, Sprague

& Stuart 2005, Abbott & Godinho, 2001). This reference to professional and personal lives also

takes into consideration the importance of effective oral skills when addressing a range of

audiences (UNSW, 2008, Griffith University, 2007). As Young and Travis (2004) state such

skills are not just needed in more public communication but at the interpersonal level as well. As
 9

one university oral communication resource guide states: “interpersonal communication involves

interacting effectively with others to achieve a particular outcome” (UNSW, 2008).

The notion of achieving a particular outcome is in line with the rhetorical perspective of

oral communication, that of being persuasive. McCarthy and Hatcher’s (2002) view are that

“most speaking opportunities have persuasive intentions” and that speakers must make

intentional choices about how they will present their ideas as well as what they will present. This

relates to both one-on-one exchanges as well as more formal situations, such as prepared oral

presentations. From the literature, it is evident that effective oral communication is seen as a

‘lifelong’ skill that will benefit students both personally and professionally in a diverse range of

contexts.

The concern with providing a general definition of oral communication is that it can lead

to an oversimplification of the specific nature and requirements of each speaking opportunity.

Simply subscribing to a view that all oral communication can be ‘effective’ assist in developing

students who are able to make a positive impression at an up-coming job interview as well as

deliver a 10-minute speech. Oral communication is an extremely rich and diverse area of study.

The body of knowledge that is available dates back thousands of years. (Irvine & Lesley. 2009)

To cope with such a wealth of information, summaries are often made. However, much

meaning can be lost if ideas are reduced too far. A ‘conversational quality’ may indeed be

recommended for both small group discussion and more public speech, but although both

involve oral communication, they offer very different challenges for the speaker. This study is

concerned with the more formal end of the spectrum, that of giving a prepared oral presentation.

For this, the researchers draw on Levin and Topping’s (2006) broad definition of oral

presentation: “a talk or speech given by a presenter (sometimes more than one) to an audience

of two or more people”.

 .

Chapter 3

Research Methodology

Research Design

This study utilized a quantitative research design that focused on qualifying the

collection and analysis of data. It is formed from deductive approach where emphasis is placed

on the testing of theory, shaped by empiricist and positivist philosophies. Creswell (2002) noted

that quantitative research is the process of collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and writing the

research study.

The researchers used a descriptive research methodology in this study to determine

students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a form of assessment.

Descriptive research design is a scientific method that aims to observe and describe the

characteristics or behaviors of a specific population or sample without establishing cause-and-

effect relationships. It provides a detailed account of existing conditions or patterns through data

collection and analysis, without making predictions or explaining why things occur.

Descriptive method is a research method that tries to describe phenomenon,

occurrence, event, that happens in the present. Creswell (1994) said the descriptive method of

research is to gather information about present existing condition.

Research Environment

The study had been conducted in Kumalarang National High School, Kumalarang,

Zamboanga del Sur, the said public school offers a complete Junior and Senior High School

Program Under K-12 Curriculum of the Department of Education. The researchers concentrated

on Grade 11 HUMSS and Grade 12 ABM from the aforementioned school.

 11

Research Respondents

The research respondents of this study were the 40 Grade 11 Humanities and Social

Sciences (HUMSS) and Grade 12 Accountancy, Business and Management (ABM) of

Kumalarang National High School in the School Year 2022-2023.

In obtaining the number of respondents, the researchers relied on the model of Budui,

and Moran, (2021) in gathering the data number of the respondents are approximately 40, an

appropriate number for a most quantitative study.

Research Instrument

The researchers used a checklist questionnaire. The said instrument used to determine

the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation. Adopted from Foreign Language

Classroom Anxiety Scale of Hortwitz, E., Hortwitz, M. & Cope (1986). The research instrument

utilized a previously developed research instrument, which underwent a rigorous validation

process that involved input from research validators. This crucial step ensured that the adapted

instrument was well-suited for the specific research context and would generate reliable and

valid data to support the research objectives.

Sampling Technique

The sampling technique that was used in this study was the purposive sampling under

the probability sampling technique. Purposive sampling refers to a group of non-probability

sampling techniques in which units are selected because they have characteristics that you

need in your sample. According to Arikunto (2010), purposive sampling technique is the process

of selecting sample by taking subject that is not based on the level or area, but it is taken based

on the specific purpose. Purposive sampling is where a researcher selects a sample based on

the need study.

 12

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers created the steps in this part in accordance with the appropriate

methodology for carrying out the investigation. Prior to beginning the study, the researchers

initially secure the approval from the School Principal and class advisers of the Grade 11

HUMSS and Grade 12 ABM students.

After the approval, the researchers distributed the questionnaire. Each respondent in the

research project received a personal packet of questionnaires, which also be personally

collected. Furthermore, the data collected had been analyzed, and interpreted by the

researchers.

Statistical Treatment

Statistical tools such as weighted mean had been used to analyze the students’

perception in an oral presentation, while percentages were utilized to determine the percentage

number of respondents as to their sex and age.

 .

Chapter 4

Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data

This chapter presents, analyzes and Interpretation of data gathered in the study.

Students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a form of assessment. These were

treated with Quasi-Experimental such as dividing the demographic profile of the respondents.

Part 1. Students’ Demographic profile

II. Students’ Sex.

Sex

41%

59%

Male Female

Figure 2. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of respondents’ Sex

Figure 2. depicts the percentage distribution of the respondents according to their sex.

As seen, the male students correspond of (41%). While the female students correspond (59%).

Therefore, the female students got the highest percentage.

 37

I. Students’ Age

Age
15%
25%

23%

38%

Age- 16 Age- 17 Age- 18 Age- 19

Figure 3. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of respondents’ Age

Figure 3. depicts the percentage distribution of the respondents according to their age.

As seen, sixteen (16) years old or Twenty-five percent (25%), Seventeen years old or thirty-

seven percent (37%), eighteen (18) years old or twenty-three percent (23%). While the nineteen

(19) years old or fifteen percent (15%). Therefore, the 17 years old students got the highest

percentage of 37% as of population of respondents of the study.

 38

Table 1. Male Students’ Perception on Interactive Oral presentation

Items Mean Interpretation

1. I am confident while I am presenting my 3.29 Average

oral recitation.

2. I am uncertain while I am presenting orally. 3.47 High

3. I am relaxed while doing oral presentation. 3.23 Average

4. I get distracted in an oral recitation which 3.64 High

resulted me to forget things.

5. I enjoy the experience of oral presentation. 3.29 Average

6. I admire myself when I am doing an oral 3.35 Average

presentation in front of a large group of

people.

7. I keep on thinking that other students are 4 High

better at oral recitation than I.

8. Even if I am very well-prepared, I am still 4.29 High

anxious about doing oral recitation

Over-all Mean 3.57 High

Hypothetical Mean Percentage: 1.00 – 1.80 Lower 3.43 – 4.23 High

1.81 – 2.61 Low 4.24 – 5.0 Higher
2.62 – 3.42 Average
 39

The highest mean, as evaluated by survey male respondents, is the item 8 (8. Even

if I am very well-prepared, I am still anxious about doing oral recitation) with the mean of

4.29interpreted high, and item 3 (3 I am relaxed while doing oral presentation.) has the lowest

mean of 3.23 interpreted average. It has over-all mean of 3.57 which is interpreted high on the

students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a form of assessment

 40

Table 2. Female Students’ Perception on Interactive Oral presentation

Items Mean Interpretation

1. I am confident while I am presenting my 3.47 High

oral recitation.

2. I am uncertain while I am presenting orally. 3.39 Average

3. I am relaxed while doing oral presentation. 3.04 Average

4. I get distracted in an oral recitation which 4.04 High

resulted me to forget things.

5. I enjoy the experience of oral presentation. 3.73 High

6. I admire myself when I am doing an oral 2.95 Average

presentation in front of a large group of

people.

7. I keep on thinking that other students are 4 High

better at oral recitation than I.

8. Even if I am very well-prepared, I am still 4 High

anxious about doing oral recitation

Over-all Mean 3.58 High

Hypothetical Mean Percentage: 1.00 – 1.80 Lower 3.43 – 4.23 High

1.81 – 2.61 Low 4.24 – 5.0 Higher
2.62 – 3.42 Average
 41

The highest mean, as evaluated by survey female respondents, is the item 4 (4. I get

distracted in an oral recitation which resulted me to forget things.) with the mean of 4.04

interpreted high, and item 6 (6. I admire myself when I am doing an oral presentation in front of

a large group of people.) has the lowest mean of 2.95 interpreted average. It has over-all mean

of 3.58 which is interpreted high on the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation

as a form of assessment.
 42

Table 3. Male Students’ Perception on Interactive Oral presentation (16 years old)

Items Mean Interpretation

1. I am confident while I am presenting my 3.25 Average

oral recitation.

2. I am uncertain while I am presenting orally. 2.5 Low

3. I am relaxed while doing oral presentation. 3.25 Average

4. I get distracted in an oral recitation which 3.5 High

resulted me to forget things.

5. I enjoy the experience of oral presentation. 4 High

6. I admire myself when I am doing an oral 3.75 High

presentation in front of a large group of

people.

7. I keep on thinking that other students are 3.75 High

better at oral recitation than I.

8. Even if I am very well-prepared, I am still 4 High

anxious about doing oral recitation

Over-all Mean 3.5 High

Hypothetical Mean Percentage: 1.00 – 1.80 Lower 3.43 – 4.23 High

1.81 – 2.61 Low 4.24 – 5.0 Higher
2.62 – 3.42 Average
 43

The highest mean, as evaluated by survey respondents who are male students and 16

years old, are the item 5 and item 8 (5. I enjoy the experience of oral presentation. 8. Even if I

am very well-prepared, I am still anxious about doing oral recitation) with the same mean of 4

interpreted high, and item 2 (I am uncertain while I am presenting orally.) has the lowest mean

of 2.5 interpreted average. It has an over-all mean of 3.5 which is interpreted high on the

students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a form of assessment.

 44

Table 4. Female Students’ Perception on Interactive Oral presentation (16 years old)

Items Mean Interpretation

1. I am confident while I am presenting my 3.83 High

oral recitation.

2. I am uncertain while I am presenting orally. 3.5 High

3. I am relaxed while doing oral presentation. 3.33 Average

4. I get distracted in an oral recitation which 4 High

resulted me to forget things.

5. I enjoy the experience of oral presentation. 3.83 High

6. I admire myself when I am doing an oral 3.16 Average

presentation in front of a large group of

people.

7. I keep on thinking that other students are 3.66 High

better at oral recitation than I.

8. Even if I am very well-prepared, I am still 4.16 High

anxious about doing oral recitation

Over-all Mean 3.68 High

Hypothetical Mean Percentage: 1.00 – 1.80 Lower 3.43 – 4.23 High

1.81 – 2.61 Low 4.24 – 5.0 Higher
2.62 – 3.42 Average
 45

The highest mean, as evaluated by survey respondents who are female students and 16

years old, the item 8 (8. Even if I am very well-prepared, I am still anxious about doing oral

recitation) with the mean of 4.16 interpreted high, and item 6 (6. I admire myself when I am

doing an oral presentation in front of a large group of people.) has the lowest mean of 3.3

interpreted average. It has an over-all mean of 3.68 which is interpreted high on the students’

perception of the interactive oral presentation as a form of assessment.

 46

Table 5. Male Students’ Perception on Interactive Oral presentation (17 years old)

Items Mean Interpretation

1. I am confident while I am presenting my 3.28 Average

oral recitation.

2. I am uncertain while I am presenting orally. 3.71 High

3. I am relaxed while doing oral presentation. 3.42 Average

4. I get distracted in an oral recitation which 3.85 High

resulted me to forget things.

5. I enjoy the experience of oral presentation. 2.71 Average

6. I admire myself when I am doing an oral 3.28 Average

presentation in front of a large group of

people.

7. I keep on thinking that other students are 4.42 Very High

better at oral recitation than I.

8. Even if I am very well-prepared, I am still 4.42 Very High

anxious about doing oral recitation

Over-all Mean 3.64 High

Hypothetical Mean Percentage: 1.00 – 1.80 Lower 3.43 – 4.23 High

1.81 – 2.61 Low 4.24 – 5.0 Higher
2.62 – 3.42 Average
 47

The highest mean, as evaluated by survey respondents who are Male and 17 years

old, are the item 7 and 8 (8. Even if I am very well-prepared, I am still anxious about doing oral

recitation, 7. I keep on thinking that other students are better at oral recitation than I.) with the

same mean of 4.42 interpreted high, and Item 5, has the mean (5. I enjoy the experience of oral

presentation) has the lowest mean of 3 interpret presentation. it has as over-all mean of 3.64

which is interpreted high on the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a

form of assessment.
 48

Table 6. Female Students’ Perception on Interactive Oral presentation (17 years old)

Items Mean Interpretation

1. I am confident while I am presenting my 3.12 Average

oral recitation.

2. I am uncertain while I am presenting orally. 3.12 Average

3. I am relaxed while doing oral presentation. 2.5 Average

4. I get distracted in an oral recitation which 3.62 High

resulted me to forget things.

5. I enjoy the experience of oral presentation. 3.25 Average

6. I admire myself when I am doing an oral 2.75 Average

presentation in front of a large group of

people.

7. I keep on thinking that other students are 3.62 High

better at oral recitation than I.

8. Even if I am very well-prepared, I am still 4 High

anxious about doing oral recitation

Over-all Mean 3.25 Average

Hypothetical Mean Percentage: 1.00 – 1.80 Lower 3.43 – 4.23 High

1.81 – 2.61 Low 4.24 – 5.0 Higher
2.62 – 3.42 Average
 49

The highest mean, as evaluated by survey respondents who are Female and 17

years old, is the item 8 (8. Even if I am very well-prepared, I am still anxious about doing oral

recitation.) with the mean of 4 interpreted high, and Item 3 (3. I am relaxed while doing oral

presentation.) with the mean of 2.5. it has as over-all mean of 3.25 which is interpreted average

on the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a form of assessment.

 50

Table 7. Male Students’ Perception on Interactive Oral presentation (18 years old)

Items Mean Interpretation

1. I am confident while I am presenting my 3.25 Average

oral recitation.

2. I am uncertain while I am presenting orally. 3.5 High

3. I am relaxed while doing oral presentation. 3 Average

4. I get distracted in an oral recitation which 3.75 High

resulted me to forget things.

5. I enjoy the experience of oral presentation. 3.5 High

6. I admire myself when I am doing an oral 3.25 Average

presentation in front of a large group of

people.

7. I keep on thinking that other students are 3.75 High

better at oral recitation than I.

8. Even if I am very well-prepared, I am still 4 High

anxious about doing oral recitation

Over-all Mean 3.5 Average

Hypothetical Mean Percentage: 1.00 – 1.80 Lower 3.43 – 4.23 High

1.81 – 2.61 Low 4.24 – 5.0 Higher
2.62 – 3.42 Average
 51

The highest mean, as evaluated by survey respondents who are Male and 18 years

old, is the item 8 (8. Even if I am very well-prepared, I am still anxious about doing oral

recitation) with the mean of 4 interpreted very high, and item 3 (3. I am relaxed while doing oral

presentation) has the lowest mean of 3 interpreted average. It has over-all mean of 3.5 which is

interpreted average on the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a form of

assessment
 52

Table 8. Female Students’ Perception on Interactive Oral presentation (18 years old)

Items Mean Interpretation

1. I am confident while I am presenting my 3.2 Average

oral recitation.

2. I am uncertain while I am presenting orally. 3.4 High

3. I am relaxed while doing oral presentation. 3 Average

4. I get distracted in an oral recitation which 4.2 High

resulted me to forget things.

5. I enjoy the experience of oral presentation. 3.8 High

6. I admire myself when I am doing an oral 3.6 Average

presentation in front of a large group of

people.

7. I keep on thinking that other students are 4.6 Very High

better at oral recitation than I.

8. Even if I am very well-prepared, I am still 4 High

anxious about doing oral recitation

Over-all Mean 3.72 High

Hypothetical Mean Percentage: 1.00 – 1.80 Lower 3.43 – 4.23 High

1.81 – 2.61 Low 4.24 – 5.0 Higher
2.62 – 3.42 Average
 53

The highest mean, as evaluated by survey respondents who are female and 18 years

old, is the item 7 (7. I keep on thinking that other students are better at oral recitation than I.)

with the mean of 4.6 interpreted very high, and item 3 (3. I am relaxed while doing oral

presentation) has the lowest mean of 3 interpreted average. It has an over-all mean of 3.72

which is interpreted high on the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a

form of assessment.
 54

Table 9. Male Students’ Perception on Interactive Oral presentation (19 years old)

Items Mean Interpretation

1. I am confident while I am presenting my 3.5 High

oral recitation.

2. I am uncertain while I am presenting orally. 4.5 High

3. I am relaxed while doing oral presentation. 3 Average

4. I get distracted in an oral recitation which 3 Average

resulted me to forget things.

5. I enjoy the experience of oral presentation. 3.5 High

6. I admire myself when I am doing an oral 3 Average

presentation in front of a large group of

people.

7. I keep on thinking that other students are 3.5 Average

better at oral recitation than I.

8. Even if I am very well-prepared, I am still 4.5 High

anxious about doing oral recitation

Over-all Mean 3.56 High

Hypothetical Mean Percentage: 1.00 – 1.80 Lower 3.43 – 4.23 High

1.81 – 2.61 Low 4.24 – 5.0 Higher
2.62 – 3.42 Average
 55

The highest mean, as evaluated by survey respondents who are male and 19 years

old, are the item 2 and Item 8 (2. I am uncertain while I am presenting orally. And 8. Even if I am

very well-prepared, I am still anxious about doing oral recitation) with the same mean of 4.5

interpreted high, and item 3, item 4, and Item 6 (3. I am relaxed while doing an oral

presentation. And 4. I get distracted in an oral recitation which resulted me to forget things.6. I

admire myself when I am doing an oral presentation in front of a large group of people.) has the

lowest mean of 3 interpreted average. It has over-all mean of 3.56 which is interpreted high on

the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a form of assessment.

 56

Table 10. Female Students’ Perception on Interactive Oral presentation (19 years old)

Items Mean Interpretation

1. I am confident while I am presenting my 4 High

oral recitation.

2. I am uncertain while I am presenting orally. 3.75 High

3. I am relaxed while doing oral presentation. 3.5 Average

4. I get distracted in an oral recitation which 4.75 High

resulted me to forget things.

5. I enjoy the experience of oral presentation. 4.5 High

6. I admire myself when I am doing an oral 2.25 Low

presentation in front of a large group of

people.

7. I keep on thinking that other students are 4.5 High

better at oral recitation than I.

8. Even if I am very well-prepared, I am still 3.75 High

anxious about doing oral recitation

Over-all Mean 3.87 High

Hypothetical Mean Percentage: 1.00 – 1.80 Lower 3.43 – 4.23 High

1.81 – 2.61 Low 4.24 – 5.0 Higher
2.62 – 3.42 Average
 57

The highest mean, as evaluated by survey respondents who are female and 19 years

old, is the item 4 (4. I get distracted in an oral recitation which resulted me to forget things.) with

the mean of 4.75 interpreted high, and item 6 (6. I admire myself when I am doing an oral

presentation in front of a large group of people.) has the lowest mean of 2.25 interpreted low. It

has over-all mean of 3.87 which is interpreted high on the students’ perception of the interactive

oral presentation as a form of assessment.

This study implied that students’ attitude towards their oral presentation may play a

critical role in overall academic achievement. When students perceive their performance in a

positive light, they are more likely to feel motivated to learn and put in a necessary effort to

succeed. This positive perception not only impacts their grades in a short term but it can also

have a long-lasting effect on their educational and professional trajectories. By fostering a

positive attitude towards oral presentation educators can help their students develop a sense of

confidence and empowerment that can carry over into other areas of their academic and

personal lives.

Additionally, if a student holds negative beliefs about their capabilities, they may be

less likely to engage with course materials, less likely to seek out opportunities of learning and

growth, and more likely to give up in the face of challenges. This can create a self-fulfilling cycle,

where a lack of effort and engagement leads to poorer performance, which in turn reinforces

negative belief and farther diminishes motivation. Nevertheless, student’s positive beliefs about

their abilities may be more likely to approach learning with enthusiasm and persistence seeking

out challenges and opportunities to grow and develop their skills one of the key factors that

contributes to a student’s success in an academia is their perception of their own academic

abilities.
 58

Chapter 5

Summary of Findings, conclusion, and recommendations

This chapter provides a summary of the findings on the variables examined in this

study, the conclusion created by these practical research writers based on the strength of the

information gathered, and recommendations given regarding the findings.

Summary of Findings

The following findings have been organized in the order whereby the research problem

was presented.

1. What is the students’ perception in oral presentation in terms of the following dimension;

1.1. Sex

Depicts the percentage distribution of the respondents according to their sex.

As seen, the male students correspond of (16.41%). While the female students

correspond (22.59%). Therefore, the female students got the highest percentage.

(Figure 2)

Depicts the percentage distribution of the respondents according to their age.

As seen, sixteen (16) years old or Twenty-five percent (25%), Seventeen years old or

thirty-seven percent (37%), eighteen (18) years old or twenty-three percent (23%). While

the nineteen (19) years old or fifteen percent (15%). Therefore, the 17 years old students

got the highest percentage of 37% as of population of respondents of the study. (Figure

3)

It has over-all mean of 3.57 which is interpreted high on the students’

perception of the interactive oral presentation as a form of assessment for the male

respondents. (cf. Table 1)

 59

It has over-all mean of 3.58 which is interpreted high on the students’

perception of the interactive oral presentation as a form of assessment for the female

respondents. (cf. Table 2)

1.2. Age (16-19)

The male respondents (16 years old). It has an over-all mean of 3.5 which is

interpreted high on the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a form

of assessment. (cf. table 3)

The female respondents (16 years old) It has an over-all mean of 3.68 which

is interpreted high on the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a

form of assessment (cf. table 4)

The male respondents (17 years old). it has as over-all mean of 3.64 which is

interpreted high on the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a form

of assessment. (cf. table 5)

The female respondents (17 years old). it has as over-all mean of 3.25 which

is interpreted average on the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as

a form of assessment. (cf. table 6)

The male respondents (18 years old) It has over-all mean of 3.5 which is

interpreted average on the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a

form of assessment. (cf. table 7)

The female respondents (18 years old). It has an over-all mean of 3.72 which

is interpreted high on the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a

form of assessment. (cf. table 8)

 60

The male respondents (19 years old). It has over-all mean of 3.56 which is

interpreted high on the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a form

of assessment. (cf. table 9)

The female respondents (19 years old) It has over-all mean of 3.87 which is

interpreted high on the students’ perception of the interactive oral presentation as a form

of assessment. (cf. table 10)

2. What is the Implication of Students’ perception towards their academic performance?

(cf. Chapter 4)

Conclusion

The research findings indicate the perception between male and female

respondents regarding their experiences and perceptions of oral recitation and presentation.

Male respondents tend to feel anxious about oral recitation, even when well-prepared. Female

respondents are more likely to get distracted during oral recitation, leading to forgetfulness.

Male respondents generally feel relaxed during oral presentations. Female respondents do not

admire themselves when presenting in front of a large group.

The findings show that female students who are 17 years old have the lowest mean in

all surveys. On the other hand, the female students who are 19 years old have the highest

mean. This indicate that a significant number of 17-year-old female respondents experience

anxiety when it comes to conducting oral presentations, despite their level of preparedness.

This suggests a prevailing trend of anxiety among the participants regarding oral presentations.

Further exploration and support in addressing this anxiety can be beneficial to enhance their

confidence and overall presentation skills. In addition, the data reveals that a majority of 19-

year-old female participants report being susceptible to distractions during oral presentations,
 61

leading to difficulties in retaining and recalling information. This indicates a common challenge

faced by this demographic, highlighting the need for strategies and support to improve focus

and memory retention during presentations. Implementing techniques to minimize distractions

and enhance concentration could enhance their overall performance and help mitigate the

impact of forgetfulness during oral presentations.

Recommendation

Based on the summary and conclusion that has been previously mentioned, I would

like to suggest that the subsequent recommendations that will be presented are derived from

the information provided earlier.

Students may now reflect on their oral recitation skills and improve their ability to

communicate effectively. Additionally, by engaging in group discussions and activities, students

can develop stronger relationships with their classmates and learn to appreciate their unique

perspectives.

Teacher may deliver information to their students clearly and understandable. Effective

presentations can help teachers engage their students and hold their attention, making the

learning experience more enjoyable and effective. In addition, accurate explanation is important

to ensure that students fully understand the material being taught.

Future Researcher. The information provided will be useful for future researchers as it

will serve as a helpful guide for their initial research. By utilizing this resource, they can gain

valuable insights and knowledge to inform and enhance their own research projects. future

researchers may also conduct similar studies with large population.

 62

References:

Abbott, & Godinho. (2001). Thinking voices: Developing oral communication skills. Google
Books. Retrieved February 24, 2023, from
https://books.google.com/books/about/Thinking_Voices.html?id=b3BTZnp90eQC

Ackoff. (1953). (PDF) sampling methods in research methodology; how to choose a ... Retrieved
February 25, 2023, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319998246_Sampling_Methods_in_Research_M
ethodology_How_to_Choose_a_Sampling_Technique_for_Research

Author links open overlay panelDung C. Bui, AbstractThe utility of lecture note-taking is well
documented, Alloway, T. P., Atkinson, R. C., Baddeley, A. D., Berninger, V. W., Case, R.,
Daneman, M., Dunkel, P., Kail, R., Kiewra, K. A., Kobayashi, K., Oberauer, K., Rickards,
J. P., Tamez, E., Turner, M. L., Unsworth, N., Aiken, E. G., Annis, L. F., … Fry, A. F.
(2013, May 22). The role of working memory abilities in lecture note-taking. Learning and
Individual Differences.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608014000958

Bickley, D. C. (2016). The influence of anxiety on memory performance: An exploration of the

effects of anxiety and task difficulty on working memory and long-term memory retrieval.
The Journal of General Psychology, 143(2), 108-128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2016.1171868

Barber, J. M., & Kennedy, M. A. (2016). The prevalence of public speaking anxiety among
college students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of General Psychology, 143(6), 363–383.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2016.1222405

Bizzel, P., & Herzberg, B. (1990). The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the
present. St. Martin's Press.

Bizzell, & Herzberg. (1990). The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the
present ... Retrieved February 24, 2023, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/357551.

Bizzell, P. (2000, December 22). The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the
present. Google Books. Retrieved February 24, 2023, from
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Rhetorical_Tradition.html?
id=j_18QgAACAAJ.

Cheng, w, & Warren. (2005). Effective presentation skills - postdocs.mit.edu. Effective

presentation skills. Pearson Education. https://postdocs.mit.edu/document/effective-
presentation-skills-2018-04-18
 63

Crosling, & Ward. (2002). (PDF) Crosling, G., ward, I. (2002) oral communication: The needs
and ... Retrieved February 24, 2023, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244990425_Crosling_G_Ward_I_2002_Oral_Co
mmunication_The_needs_and_uses_of_business_graduate_employees_English_for_Specif
ic_Purposes_An_International_Journal_211.

Creswell, & Frankeal et al. (2012). Chapter III Research Methodology - web UPI official.
Retrieved February 24, 2023, from
http://repository.upi.edu/7096/7/S_ING_0900713_Chapter3.pdf.

Creswell. (1994). Chapter III Research methodology 3.1 design of the study. Retrieved February
24, 2023, from http://repository.upi.edu/20453/6/S_ING_1006412_Chapter3.pdf.

Creswell. (2012). Chapter III Research methodology 3.1 design of the study - web UPI Official.
Retrieved February 24, 2023, from
http://repository.upi.edu/20582/6/S_ING_1006412_Chapter3.pdf.

Emden, J. van, & Becker. (2004). Presentation skills for students. Google Books. Retrieved
February 24, 2023, from
https://books.google.com/books/about/Presentation_Skills_for_Students.html?
id=cRxHEAAAQBAJ.

ead, S., & Brewis, J. (2001). The politics of presentation: Evidence from the web. Journal of
Business Communication, 38(3), 253-278. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194360103800303

F;, M. H. C. (2016). Are worry and rumination specific pathways linking neuroticism and
symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients with generalized anxiety disorder, major
depressive disorder and mixed anxiety-depressive disorder?. PloS one.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27243462/

Ferlazzo, L. (2021, April 19). Assessment strategies for English-language learners (opinion).
Education Week. Retrieved February 24, 2023, from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-
learning/opinion-assessment-strategies-for-english-language-learners/2021/04.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz , M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety scale -
university of wisconsin ... Retrieved February 24, 2023, from
https://dept.english.wisc.edu/rfyoung/333/FLCAS.pdf.

Levin, & Topping. (2006). Perfect presentations! – Peter Levin & Graham Topping - Hartley -
2006 ... Retrieved February 24, 2023, from
https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2006.00660_12.x

Levin, & Topping. (2006). Research guides: Organizing your Social Sciences Research
Assignments: Giving an oral presentation. Giving an Oral Presentation - Organizing Your
Social Sciences Research Assignments - Research Guides at University of Southern
 64

California. Retrieved February 24, 2023, from

https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments/oralpresentation

Joughin. (2003). In flew, T (ed.) communication, creativity and global citizenship ... - qut.
communication, creativity and global citizenship . Retrieved February 24, 2023, from
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/26196/1/26196.pdf.

Knight, & Yorke. (2006). Employability in higher education: What it is, what it is not. Retrieved
February 24, 2023, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225083582_Employability_in_Higher_Education
_What_It_Is_What_It_Is_Not.

Marsh, Meade, & Roediger III. (2003). Learning facts from fiction - Washington University in
St. Louis. http://psychnet.wustl.edu/memory/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Marsh-et-al-
2003_JML.pdf

Mazer, J. P., & Sharabi, L. L. (2015). The effects of public speaking training on college students'
self-esteem. International Journal of Psychology, 50(3), 546-549.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12185

McCarthy, P. (2002, June 27). Presentation skills: The Essential Guide for Students. Google
Books. Retrieved February 24, 2023, from
https://books.google.com/books/about/Presentation_Skills.html?id=XOjrdp17bBEC.

Mcdaniel, R. (1970, June 10). Motivating students. Vanderbilt University. Retrieved February
24, 2023, from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/motivating-students/.

Meloni, & Thompson. (1980). The importance of oral presentations for university students -
MCSER. Retrieved February 24, 2023, from
https://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/viewFile/4278/4184.

Mitchell, & Jolley. (2012, February 12). Research design explained. Google Books. Retrieved
February 24, 2023, from
https://books.google.com/books/about/Research_Design_Explained.html?
id=HID1ziiLK48C.

Morton, & O’Brien. (2005). (PDF) A short guide to oral assessment - researchgate. Retrieved
February 24, 2023, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228844594_A_Short_Guide_to_Oral_Assessmen
t

Nikolopoulou, K. (2022, December 1). What is quota sampling?: Definition & examples.
Scribbr. Retrieved March 19, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quota-
sampling/
 65

Ninnes, P., Zajda, J., Bablis, F., Baturo, A. R., Booth, T., Bray, M., Carlin, P., Christie, P.,
Cooper, M., Cooper, R., Cooper, T. J., Denman, B. D., Freedman, B., Gamage, D., Geo-
JaJa, M. A., Gill, J., Giorgio, B., Hickling-Hudson, A., Hill, B., … Zajda, J. (2005). Global
Pedagogies: Equity, access and democracy in education: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual
Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Comparative and International Education
Society, School of Education, Australian Catholic University, 3-5 December 2004.
Australian and New Zealand Comparative and International Education Society.

Rapp, C. (2022, March 15). Aristotle's rhetoric. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved
February 24, 2023, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/

Sprague, & Stuart. (2005). The speaker's handbook. Google Books. Retrieved February 24,
2023, from https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Speaker_s_Handbook.html?
id=g0CJD8-ez8AC

UNSW. (2008). Associate professor Sang-Wook (stanley) cho. UNSW Sites. Retrieved February
24, 2023, from https://www.unsw.edu.au/staff/sang-wook--stanley--cho

Voncken, M. J., & Bögels, S. M. (2016, March 30). Social performance deficits in Social Anxiety
Disorder: Reality during conversation and biased perception during speech. Maastricht
University. https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/publications/social-performance-deficits-
in-social-anxiety-disorder-reality-du

Yang, G. Y., & Chen, L. Y. (2015). The effects of anxiety on language learning. The Journal of
Education and Practice, 6(31), 43-47. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1088086

Yorke, & Knight. (2006). Yorke, M. And Knight, P.T. (2006) embedding employability into the
Curriculum Learning & Employability Series 1. The Higher Education Academy, York. -
references - scientific research publishing. Retrieved February 24, 2023, from
https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1720247

Young, & Travis. (2004). Oral Communication: Skills, choices, and consequences. Retrieved
February 24, 2023, from https://www.amazon.com/Oral-Communication-Skills-Choices-
Consequences-ebook/dp/B077H2NCLJ
.