|
|
A comparative evaluation of two video packages for teaching presentations - Visitron: The Language of Presentations & Working English (Unit 8: Presentations) |
| CONTENTS |
| INTRODUCTION |
The present essay is a comparative evaluation of two video packages produced for teaching presentations in an ELT context, Visitron: The Language of Presentations and Working English (Unit 8: Presentations). The former was published in 1984 by Longman, Ltd., the latter in 1993 by Werner Söderstrom Ltd. The first section of the essay discusses the nature of the materials within the ELT genre of ESP and establishes the criterion of authenticity associated with such materials as the overall focus of the evaluation. Within this context, the second section introduces a matrix model for elaborating a range of visual, aural and print elements that the evaluator should be alert to in assessing the authenticity of the model presentation offered to the learner. The third section applies the elements thus identified to the presentations in the two video, yielding the foundation for the evaluation proper in the section to follow. Drawing on this assessment, the conclusion suggests how the materials reviewed might be exploited as part of the teacher's repertoire of video resources.
Purpose of the Evaluation
The comparative approach adopted in this essay was by prompted the apparently contrary philosophies of the products with regard to a similar task: Visitron (hereinafter abbreviated as VIS) starts out very much top down with a meticulously crafted 30-minute presentation which is then analyzed in detail. In Working English (hereinafter WEN), a model presentation as such is nowhere to be found; the learner is presented with an array of building blocks, and the approach strikes one as decidedly bottom-up. But these are first impressions, not evaluations. With a due assessment, "contrary" should become "complementary", for both products doubtless have something to contribute to the teacher's repertoire of resources.
| FOCUS OF THE EVALUATION |
Allan (1985:21) classifies Visitron as ESP material, describing it as "a simulation of a high-level business presentation intended to practice the skills of making a presentation and of commanding the language to do so". The print materials for Unit 8 of Working English "Presentations" (Westlake et al.:145) state that the focus of the unit is the essentials of presentation with practice in the kind of language involved. Both products thus take presentation skills as their point of departure, and organize the language practice they provide around this aim. This precedence of real-world skill over language in turn, places both squarely within the category of video material described by D Willis (1983:25) as aiming to provide an authentic sample of language use. Both video packages also place a clear emphasis on productive skills, i.e., learners giving presentations of their own, in addition to using the materials for listening comprehension practice. In the case of VIS, this assumed emphasis - however reasonable - is partly Allan's own, for the product's Teacher's Manual (VIS 1984:3) mentions that learner presentations are an optional activity. The present essay will confine itself to the consideration of productive presentation skills for two reasons, one pedagogical, the other practical. First, production is the more ambitious task, and presupposes rather than excludes comprehension. Second, WEN lacks a model presentation readily comparable to that in VIS for listening comprehension purposes. While there are sequences in WEN that could be exploited for listening skills, the package makes no reference to such activities, and I will consider them beyond the scope of the present evaluation.
The identification of VIS and WEN above as ESP materials entails a crucial responsibility for the evaluator. Both packages are scripted, with the full control of language and visual content this implies, yet they must, in keeping with the criterion of task authenticity in ESP established by McDonough (1984:77), be relevant and appropriate to the learner's needs in terms of input text (speech) and task (presentation). In general, this means that the evaluator should look for sequences in which scripting compromises the demands of authenticity. For the model presentations to be considered here, he or she would heed the stipulation for visual materials set out by D Willis (1983:22) and insist that the visual material be no more explicit than it would be in real life and that it enable students to recognize and take advantage of the visual signals naturally present in the authentic communication task.
In his discussion of the relevance - equated here with authenticity - of video materials and its relation to motivation, Lonergan (1984:64) mentions authentic tasks and ESP in connection with transfer activities. He distinguishes two categories of such activities: actual transfer activities, in which learners are speaking about themselves and their own interests and simulated transfer activities, in which a context, setting and role are imposed on the learner but which retain their validity "if the learners can identify with the proposed scene" (ibid.:60). In the evaluation to follow, identification with the scene will be applied beyond scene in the sense of physical setting as described by Allan (1985:69) or J Willis (1983:33); "scene" will be broadened to encompass the category of Participants (J Willis 1985:34, 37) and thus to include affective elements such as speaker appearance, accent, gender, and ethnic background.
Productive presentation skills and authenticity together form the focus of the evaluation. The two considerations can be regarded as filters ensuring a principled generation of criteria using the matrix model below.
| THE MATRIX MODEL |
The evaluation criteria to be applied to the video packages can be broken down in terms of the matrix below (for a similar application of the matrix technique, see Foley (1997:5)). The individual cells encompass the interaction of formal, linguistic and affective elements with the visual, aural and print channels. The application of the matrix and the terms used are described in detail below.
Formal here refers to the linear organization of the presentation, ranging from the division of the activity into distinct phases to the detailed sequencing of the points within a single phase. This category also includes the linguistic and affective means through which these divisions or enumerations are signalled. Affective is intended to embrace all non-linguistic elements; it is not intended in the restricted sense of the Affective category mentioned by J Willis (1983:37). The visual channel will be analyzed using the model presented by J Willis (1983:37). The print channel comprises materials under the listener's control during a presentation, in contrast to transparencies or visuals, the presentation and visibility of which is determined by the presenter.
Application of the matrix
Each cell in the matrix can be interpreted through the following frame sentence:
Are the aspects of the presentation conveyed to the leaner through the __________(visual, aural, print) channel authentic in _____ (formal, linguistic, affective) terms?
The value of the matrix lies in its indicating to the evaluator the range of elements that should be scrutinized. If constructed using relevant dimensions of the activity, the technique ensures that no relevant interactions are overlooked. As an illustration of how the model functions for purposes of evaluating the model presentation, sample criteria for each cell of the matrix are described below. These will be applied specifically to the two video packages in the following section.
1) Visual-Formal
This cell covers the visual elements of gesture and of the textual and interactive communicative layers described by J Willis (1983:37). Examples include hand gestures indicating a transition from one point to another (first, second, third), pointing to a flapboard or other aid when proceeding to explain visuals, and folding or spreading one's hands to signal a the conclusion or beginning of a point. In addition, this cell encompasses turn-taking between speaker and audience, which can be seen as a digression within a presentation, an element that J Willis (1983:37) also classifies as interactive or textual.
In my view, an additional category of movements can be distinguished which Willis (1983:37) and Allan (1985:69) fail to capture in their models, although the latter includes changes in posture as a dynamic visual element. In the case of a presentation, one might look for the speaker moving to a different part of the room, turning on the OHP, dimming lights, opening a window, turning a page on the flapboard, putting aside the materials for one part of the presentation and selecting the materials for the next, rising (if seated), and sitting (if standing).
2) Visual-Linguistic
Principally, this cell covers explanations of diagrams; however, it would also include hand gestures reinforcing oral descriptions of sales trends. It is here that the evaluator must ensure for scripted materials that the visual channel is not used to render the learner's aural linguistic task inauthentically easy.
3) Visual-Affective
All of the visual elements described by Willis (1983:37), i.e., Background, Situation, Participants, Proxemics, Posture, Gesture, Facial Expression, and Eye Contact contribute to the affective dimension of a presentation. The category of Participant is assumed here to cover features of gender and ethnic background.
4) Aural-Formal
This category includes linking phrases indicating transitions from one phase of the presentation to the next, such as "Right", "Now then", and the enumeration of points, e.g., firstly, secondly, thirdly, etc. Further examples are provided by Brieger and Comfort (1992:188-189). In addition, non-linguistic elements such as silence could, either as such or in conjunction with these phrases, serve to mark the transitions.
Density of terminology is also a consideration in this category, for it has to more do with the overall planning of a presentation, i.e., materials to be covered and time allotted, than with the terms used as such.
5) Aural-Linguistic
This comprises the language input of the presentation, clarity of pronunciation, as well as speed and confidence of delivery.
6) Aural-Affective
The crucial elements here are level of formality and the presenter's accent. The cell encompasses a variety of other aural elements such as laughter, snapping one's fingers, exclamations or other sound effects.
7) Print-Formal
Print materials could give an outline of the presentation. The ultimate weight on the print channel would depend on whether the speaker explicitly referred to the handout during the presentation, for example, by drawing listeners' attention to a specific numbered point or asking them to turn the page.
8) Print-Linguistic
Examples of materials in this category are handout with key figures, lists of terms and a glossary of acronyms. Here the evaluator could be alert to presenters distributing to their audience complete written versions of their presentation. This would be pose the risk of redundancy akin to that mentioned by D Willis (1983:22) for the visual and aural channels.
9) Print-Affective
This category would include logos, picture, or symbols, designed to arouse curiosity, depict a metaphor, act as an ice-breaker, or provide a shock effect, e.g., a dying rain forest.
| ANALYSIS OF THE MODEL PRESENTATION |
The model offered learners will be analyzed within the general context of authenticity in terms of the interactions illustrated above. Appendix I provides important background for the discussion of the formal elements of presentations. The figure represents the author's attempt to compare the structure of a/the presentation, as given in the print materials for the respective video packages, to a common standard, i.e., the classical model given by Brieger and Comfort (1992:187). The discussion below will make specific reference to the figure.
1) Visual-Formal
VIS starts with a 30-minute uninterrupted presentation by a consultant, Richard Hamilton (hereinafter referred to as RH) in the boardroom of Visitron corporation to an audience of six persons. WEN provides no model presentation as such; learners see five parallel presentations by five different non-native speakers interspersed with additional material, presented by additional speakers, comprising short interviews, commentaries, segments of a basketball game and a Chaplainesque silent film. One consequence of WE's approach is that the segments of any individual speaker's presentation are typically several minutes apart; it is impossible for the learner to construct a continuous presentation for any of the speakers.
A real-world presentation is essentially a linear, uninterrupted event both visually and aurally, and here Visitron provides learners with an authentic presentation in formal terms. The approaches taken in VIS and WEN can be described as top-down and bottom-up, respectively. VIS proceeds form the whole to analysis; WEN provides learners with an assortment of building blocks but does not put these all together for the learner visually or aurally at any time.
A consideration affecting this as well as the Aural-Formal category is the length of the presentation in VIS, i.e., 30 minutes. J Willis (1983:53-54) considers this too long a sequence, although her argument is based on pedagogical concerns rather than on authentic practices in the business world.
One sequence of note, as it establishes the validity of this category to some extent, is the close-up of the report RH places on the table before his audience to signal the end of his presentation. This visual reinforces his signalling the end of the presentation with an appropriate phrase thanking them for their attention.
2) Visual-Linguistic
Both packages include sequences in which the speaker details visuals. The visuals in WEN are restricted to pie charts and bar charts and an organizational diagram, while VIS makes extensive use of carefully prepared, multi-color diagrams - eight in all - specific to a corporate context, e.g., a product matrix, a planning diagram. Both approaches are authentic on the level of the presentation of a single visual, inasmuch as VIS is intended for a high-level business context whereas WEN deals with presentations on a more general level. An interesting touch in WEN is that one presenter draws an organizational chart on the spot to support his presentation.
However, the large number of visuals in the single presentation in VIS seems to be an artefact of scripting. In my view, the package's opting for a single model presentation, coupled with an understandable desire on the part of its designers to provide learners with a representative range of high-level business visuals and the language needed to describe them, results in the learner being offered a linguistic and visual tour de force of business graphics.
RH presents each diagram in turn systematically and articulately. However, his use of a pen to reinforce the presentation of curves and trends limits his use of gesture. WEN offers a similar model, with the presentation of visuals centered around the use of an OHP and pointer.
3) Visual-Affective
This is a particularly rich interaction and is thus broken down by subheadings corresponding to the visual elements described by J Willis (1983:37)
Setting and Participants
VIS sets the tone of high-level business from the outset with the arrival of RH by cab to a large office building. However, in being scripted as consultant rather than a board member, RH is abstracted further from the Lonergan's "valid prospective scene" and thus the learners than need be. While many learners could imagine themselves being the head of or on the board of a company or being called upon to give a presentation in the boardroom, I would submit that the prospect of being outside and above the organization - a consultant - is remote and therefore inauthentic to them. Compounding RH's professional remoteness is his status as an impeccably dressed and coifed, clearly well-to-do (i.e., travels by cab), white male.
In contrast, the speakers in WEN include both sexes, one person of color, and several nationalities. None of the main presenters is a native of an English-speaking country. Other differences in formality of clothing and setting can be attributed to the VI's focus on the high-level management. In opting for a single model, Visitron paints itself into a affective corner, as it were. It has scripted its audience of seven along inauthentically exclusive lines: only two are women, one of whom the viewer has identified as the PA who greets RH upon his arrival; all are white. This issue betokens a tension between pedagogy and authenticity: If the corporate boardroom is a male preserve, should scripted materials that pursue authenticity not reflect this?
Gesture
RH's range of gestures is limited. When not using his pen-pointer, his hands are tightly clasped at waist level. This shortcoming is particularly evident in screens 13 and 14 of the print materials in which he enumerates three reasons for the company's difficulties with clear linguistic signals, i.e., firstly, secondly, thirdly) but uses no hand gestures whatsoever. The lack of gestures may be construed as authentic in that the subject of his presentation, business difficulties, is a serious one; in my view, enumeration using the fingers could have been scripted in here to offer learners an authentic repertoire of hand gestures even within a script calling for a serious tone.
4) Aural-Formal
VIS offers an extensive range of transitional phrases and enumerations. This is a crucial presentation skill, and while these sequences are clearly scripted, they do not strike the viewer in inauthentically frequent or complex, e.g., an enumeration of points within already enumerated main points.
The density of visuals clearly brings a density of business terms, and the length of the presentation in VIS may tax listeners' attention span. Owing to its fragmented structure, WEN offers the learner very few examples of relevant transitional phrases.
5) Aural-Linguistic
RH speaks RP and his presentation is noticeably polished, with few hesitations and no repetitions. While the choice of accent doubtless conforms to an authentic high-level business context in Great Britain, the flawless delivery is an inauthentic model to for native and non-native speakers alike. Clearly, learners, too, should practice their presentations before final delivery (Brieger & Comfort 1992:186). RH's use of business terminology fits in with the situation.
None of the main presenters in WEN is a native speaker of English. All have noticeable accents (the speakers include two Belgians - one French- the other Flemish-speaking - three Germans, one Finn, and one Scandinavian), and at least two in particular have what I would describe as heavy accents that might cause some comprehension difficulties (the Flemish-speaking brewer and the German working for Sony).
Presumably, however, non-natives will be easier for learners to understand than natives are, and one is tempted here to dismiss the use of non-natives out of hand as inauthentic. Yet this impulse must be tempered by a careful consideration of learners' likely audiences. Many may work largely in non-native contexts. WEN does provide exposure to native speakers, although only in rather brief interview segments.
6) Aural-Affective
RP may evoke a variety of reactions in learners. It doubtless accords well with VI's high-level orientation, bringing even more authority and formality than intended in RH's presentation. For the reasons cited earlier under the heading Visual-Affective, RH, the model presenter, may convey to learners the inauthentic impression of presenter as an outsider who keeps his or her distance and does not interact with the audience, who are unfamiliar. This is at variance with idea of establishing a rapport - however superficial - with one's audience recommended by Brieger and Comfort (1992:186).
The speakers in WEN offer numerous models with whom non-native learners could identify positively. They hear non-natives making errors of pronunciation and grammar yet succeeding at a demanding communicative task.
7)-9) Print
Neither product makes any use of print materials as a channel of communicating with the audience in a presentation in the senses suggested above.
| EVALUATION |
One powerful aspect of the matrix technique is that it keeps the evaluator aware of not only the individual interactions to be examined but also of more global phenomena. These are suggested by the rows and columns. The discussion to follow will be structured around the column and row "sums" in Figure 1 above.
In a sense. what one sees in the model presentation for the leaner is "the play within the play". The present evaluation would be lacking without a discussion of how the packages use the channels referred to above to accomplish their own communicative task of facilitating learner presentation skills and the related language. This evaluation of the "presentation of the presentation" is based on the same nine interactions as the evaluation of the model presentation above. However, rather than being presented in a cell-by-cell fashion, the insights it has afforded will be mentioned where the contribute to the appropriate row or column sums below.
Formal authenticity
While VIS offers the learner a complete presentation, a number of shortcomings can be identified that compromise the goal of authenticity. The density of visuals and, therefore, of language have already been mentioned. Related to this is the question of length, 30 minutes. This could well be an artefact of scripting, inasmuch as the designer of the material has tied to devise what can be advertised as a high-level business presentation. Although the classification of presentation phases is open to criticism, Appendix I indicates that the main point phase of the presentation in VIS is quite dense, consisting of numerous component phases. From a pedagogical point of view, prompted very much by seeing WE's approach, one could ask whether two or more shorter presentations might not have been preferable. J Willis (1983:53-54) suggests that 20-30 minutes is too long for a program.
An additional concern in the case of VIS is the treatment of the video in the Teacher's Manual. The extremely systematic and detailed analysis, in which each phase is broken down into three sub-phases, and practice of the functions in RH's presentation reinforce the notion that it is the model to follow, although clearly functions "Turning to the future" or "Presenting the Options 2" are clearly less integral than "The heart of the matter". (See Appendix I). The thirteen sections detailed in the table of contents of the VIS Teacher's Manual are neither obligatory nor strictly linear; clearly, Presenting Diagrams is a function, like Digressing in WEN, that should be attached to the Main Point phase as an epicycle,. The onus is on the teacher to overcome this suggestion of necessity and linearity.
WEN uses the visual and print channels to convey the concept of beginning-middle-end to the learner. Visually this is done using shots of a basketball game when presenting the names of the presentation functions to be covered in the upcoming segment of the video functions to be covered, e.g., Getting attention, setting the scene; drawing attention, paragraphing, digressing). The Chaplainesque silent film, seemingly included as TV entertainment, also highlights the linear structure of a presentation, for the transitional phrases used (e.g., next, lastly) stand out in relief against he film's patent lack of content. However, it is only in the print materials that a presentation is put together for learners, and even this is done in abstract terms. Unlike the VIS practice material, which is on video and to be viewed wholly under the teacher's control and necessarily following the model presentation, the WEN course book is intended for the learner; he or she could well study the structure of a presentation before viewing.
On balance, as a video product, WEN fails to use the visual or aural channels to provide the learner with a viable model or models. It makes the salient point that there is no one right way to structure a presentation Brieger and Comfort (1992:187), but does not give the learner formally authentic examples of this diversity, i.e., presentations successfully executed from beginning to end. The bottom-up approach never reaches the top, as it were. In contrast, the exercise materials on video in VIS can be said to take the learner very much to the bottom in breaking down each phase of the presentation into three subphases; i.e., the presentation is ultimately seen as composed of 42 phases, each exemplified with a sequence from the model presentation and each identified as having its own function. Here the visual and print channels can be seen as undermining the formal authenticity of coherent whole that the learner has started with; they combine, through visual evidence and analysis to suggest to the learner that a presentation can or must be considered on an atomistic, frame-by-frame basis.
Linguistic authenticity
The key phrases introduced and practiced by the products accord well with those presented by Brieger and Comfort (1992:188), and no analysis of their authenticity or appropriacy will be undertaken here. In both products, the key phrases are presented with accompanied by the video sequence in which they occur. Both also introduce new material in this way. One example is screen 14 of VIS, Sequencing and Listing, which uses receding blocks drawn in perspective to visualize firstly, secondly, etc. and, at the same time, labels the blocks with alternative phrases for the same language function. WEN introduces new phrases with new speakers, including a native speaker, among the ones that the learner has just seen in the program. Here, however, the visual element, a close-up of the speaker does nothing to enhance the learner's understanding of the new material.
Clearly VIS with its RP presentation has a prima facie claim to authenticity. WEN includes native speakers, but the main presenters are non-natives who speak with distinct accents and make mistakes in pronunciation and grammar. As the second row of the matrix suggests, however, this is but one aspect of the aural authenticity; the model urges a consideration affective elements as well, and these are taken up below.
Affective authenticity
Learners may identify both culturally and linguistically with the non-native accents they hear on WEN, perhaps experiencing reactions such as "I can speak as well as they can!". Indeed, I would submit that the urge to identify with the presenters is compelling, for the mere fact that they appear on commercial ELT video scripts them as successful. On the other hand, strong negative reactions are possible as well. While in real life learners may go on to listen to or give presentations primarily among non-native, or at least non-RP, speakers, they most likely expect scripted ELT products to offer them a native model. Learners may suspect that when they understand a non-native, it is still not the real thing.
VIS makes no reference or use of the affective elements of a presentation, e.g., humor, eye contact, or audience engagement. WEN presents interviews with the presenters and a number of other speakers who comment on their philosophy of presentations. One distinct effect here is the authority of a native accent - one British and one American communication trainer - when giving the do's and don'ts of presentations skills. Yet, the interviews mention, rather than demonstrate, elements such as humor, eye contact, giving the audience a handout to keep, etc., and thus fall short of presenting the learner with a model to adapt in his or her own presentation. Yet, nearly all of the presentation and interview segments use big close-ups, bringing before the learner unconsciously many worthwhile facial expressions, which the teacher could exploit through freeze framing. The cost of these close-ups is a dearth of sequences exemplifying hand gestures, which would also be worth isolating for follow-up work.
Visual and aural authenticity
These two concerns are combined here, as the central issue here, here as I interpret D Willis (1993:22), is whether the visual channel is used inauthentically, compromising the learners' need to exploit aural channel for comprehension as much as they would in real life. In my view, the visual elements noted in the analysis above - close-ups, characters to identify with - function as they would in a real-world context.
In WEN, the visual channel can be seen to undermine the aural. The sequences show, including the entertainment, make the 20 minutes very watchable indeed. Yet, learners need not, indeed cannot, concentrate on the relevant task of understanding a coherent piece of discourse with a view to emulating in their future work.
In the case of VIS, it is the business visuals which again prompt concern. The sequence in WEN, in which one of the presenters draws an organizational diagram on the fly highlights just how well prepared the visuals in VIS are. The prepared materials are extensively labeled and shown to the learners using close-up shots that often exclude the presenter and thus overlook the potential of gestures. In my view, one possible consequence of this scripted emphasis on the visuals is that the learner with a business background could well go on to interpret the diagram adequately without having to rely on the accompanying verbal description as much as he or she would in real life.
Print authenticity
The products embrace two contrary print philosophies. In VIS, the teacher has full control over the print materials, which are actually exercises presented on the video in some 132 separate screens; in WEN, the learner has a course book which he or she can refer to repeatedly, taking advantage to the permanence of the print medium.
However, the exercises in the print materials for WEN aiming at a whole presentation are inauthentic, e.g., Exercise 5 (p. 152) "Presenting the Unpresentables", Ex. 16 on the "Most Amazing Bicycle".
The overall range of exercises, especially Ex. 2 on the interpretation of hand Gestures and a self-evaluation of intercultural awareness, is sound, and consistent with what I see as the product's attention overall to the affective elements.
| CONCLUSION |
VIS has much to offer formally and linguistically but ignores affective elements. A worthwhile teaching sequence might use the model from VIS, with fast forwarding over a number of the visuals. Most of the visuals in VIS lend themselves to exploitation using the sound off-vision on or sound on-vision off techniques described by Lonergan (1984:73-79). Further, many of the practice screens in the VIS material could be used for language practice, but without the suggestions of necessity and linearity criticized above. WEN enables the teacher to bring an authentic diversity to the topic of presentation skills on the linguistic and affective dimensions. It is the only one of the two packages to offers examples of audience engagement, i.e., the DEC presentation and the German artist whose speaks directly to the camera/learner, an affective aspect accentuated by Brieger and Comfort throughout (1992). In sum, the teacher would be ill-advised to select either of the two products reviewed here to the exclusion of the other. Between the two, he or she could compile teaching sequences spanning the relevant aspects of presentations, drawing critically on the packages to compile a pedagogical whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
| APPENDIX 1 |
Comparison of Presentation Structures in Working English and Visitron With Brieger and Comfort's Classical Model.
| BIBLIOGRAPHY |
| Click here to go back to the Video page. |
