Chen, L., & Zhan, H. (2019/2020). Are students relying on scripts in their oral presentations
online? International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 15(2), 126-146.
________________________________________________________________________
Leeann Chen is Professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Hong Zhan is Professor at
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Leeann Chen can be reached at Chenl@erau.edu
Are Students Relying on Scripts in their
Oral Presentations Online?
Leeann Chen & Hong Zhan
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
As an essential mode of communication, oral presentation
plays an important role in the development of second
language (L2) automaticity. However, unless best
practices are carried out—massive meaningful practice,
when presenting seldom relying on the script, in
conversational style, and keeping meaningful eye contact
with the audience—oral presentation will not be
impactful. This paper discusses through a progressive
action research in two Chinese as a second language
(CSL) classes how using duo devices with video call Apps
including WeChat group video call, FaceTime, and
Google Duo can successfully help instructors to prevent
cheating during oral presentation and thus uphold best
practices.
Keywords: online education, oral presentation, cheating
prevention, action research
INTRODUCTION
In his 2nd year Mandarin language synchronous online class, Professor Li went over
the oral presentation assignment in class and sent each student a digital copy, which
included not relying on scripts or notes, but talking in a conversational style. At the follow-
up presentation, the audience could see the presenter’s PPT (which had only pictures), and
the presenter in a small window. Meanwhile, Professor Li (and likely the students in class)
could hear paper shuffling as the presentation went on. Was the student presenter reading
a script? Did the student look at some pages of notes frequently? The student had not done
either in the face-to-face class. Was it possible that the student was not looking at anything,
but just holding some paper in hand to help deal with speech anxiety? Why should
instructors know to what extent students rely on script/notes, and how do they know that
in the online environment? Is knowing what the student was actually doing worth the
effort?
Had the above online presentation scenario happened in a face-to-face class, where the
audience could have seen the presenter; these questions would not have been needed. In
the online scenario, the first two questions imply possibilities of cheating against known
requirements. Yet without a mechanism to prove that cheating has or has not occurred, one
cannot uphold academic integrity, just as without “Turnitin.com” and other online
plagiarism identification devices, it will be hard to penalize those who plagiarize.
Moreover, how will the appearance or suspicion of cheating adversely affect the morale of
the rest of the students? The issue goes far beyond academic integrity per se. If in actuality,
International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning
127
the extent to which one depends on script/notes does not make a difference in assessment,
what is the likeability that students will give it all in presentation practice to become
familiar with the presentation content, a practice that contributes to the ongoing
development of students’ oral proficiency?
This paper, therefore, intends to share the progressively successful action research
methods the researchers used to prevent cheating in oral presentation in their synchronous
online Mandarin classes after COVID-19 forced universities to turn to online education.
To understand the significant implications beyond cheating, one needs to have a clear idea
of the role oral presentation plays in L2 education, the theory underlining this mode of
communication, as well as best practices. The literature review in the following section is
based on a search in the academic database of the researchers’ university library system to
pull up articles or books related to L2 oral presentation, manual search in Foreign Language
Annals (1990-2020) and Chinese Teachers Association journal (1966-2020). Following the
review will be a description and discussion of the action research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
DEFINITION OF CHEATING IN ACADEMIA
Since the issue under concern begins with cheating, it is necessary to first review what
cheating is. There are many definitions of cheating in academia to include the most
commonly known of plagiarism. The researchers have selected the definitions below to
indicate the nature, breadth, relevant instances, and consequences of cheating. Teixeira and
Rocha (2010) define cheating as a contextual, institutional, or course dependent series of
practices that are “illegal, unethical, immoral or against the regulations of the course or
institution." The Berkeley City College’s definition of cheating is “any attempt to give or
obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise (like an examination) without due
acknowledgment”; or “unauthorized help on assignments and projects” as Tatum,
Schwartz, Hageman, and Koretke (2018) put it. The main consequence of cheating,
according to Meier and Griffin’s Stealing the Future: Corruption in the Classroom (2005),
is that it severely undermines the quality of education.
Most discussed instances of cheating seem to come from written assignments or exams.
The researchers have not come across heavily relying the script/notes when not allowed
during an online oral presentation as an instance, although such cheating is a case of
obtaining undue assistance without acknowledgement. The researchers would like to
further clarify cheating as a deliberate and unethical act against known requirements or
criteria with the hope of not being caught. It is not that students cannot use presentation
script or note cards in their online presentation delivery, and the extent of the use can vary
from class to class, and situation to situation. However, if instructors have announced rules
about the use beforehand, and students act against the rules believing that the instructor
cannot detect, then it is an instance of cheating.
THE GROWING CONCERN OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY IN ONLINE EDUCATION
According to a most recent study of online education (Galindo, Gregori, & Martínez,
2020), the growth in online learning has been phenomenal. For example, Harvard
University had 360,000 online students in 2017. MIT had over 300 million course visitors
in 2019. The MIT platform edX had 40 million online learners (date unknown). A New
York Times article reports that in 2018 the research firm MarketsandMarkets estimated
Prevent Cheating in Online Oral Presentation
128
that the growth in online education income will be from $4 billion in 2018 to $21 billion
in 2023, more than 5 times the growth rate (Hubler, 2020).
Because in online education, students and instructors may not be able to see each other
all the time, the concern about cheating started at least over a decade ago. The Higher
Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (U.S.Department of Education, 2008), for instance,
states that institutions offering online courses must have a way of making sure the person
registered is the person who actually takes the course. Due to such concern, Galindo,
Gregori, and Martínez (2020) asked their students to appear in a small window on the
screen while they use PPT or other visuals in online oral presentations. The same New
York Times article, in discussion of academic integrity in the online part of semester of
spring 2020, reports that about one in three students say that they have cheated in online
tests. Some students uploaded their exam questions to online tutoring services and then
copied the answers. The article speculates that online cheating is one cause of some tutoring
company’s revenue increase by 35% this year (Hubler, 2020). Lee-Post and Hapke (2017)
did a survey of juniors and seniors in an online course, “over 45% regarded cheating online
as easy and 30% would cheat if given an opportunity” (p. 136). This last percentage is
alarming in that if the online environment inadvertently presents such an opportunity the
temptation to cheat will probably be taken.
Under the awareness of cheating, preventative measures have also been adopted. Other
than the aforementioned screen of PPT with a small window showing the student presenter,
devices such as video-taping or recording via webcam can testify the authenticity of the
student as well. Lockdown Browser disables browsing webpages other than the instructor-
sent test webpage. Respondus monitor can warn instructors of suspicious acts. In fact, in a
matter of weeks after campus close down due to COVAD 19, the use of Respondus grew
60% (Hubler, 2020). Commercial third-party remote proctoring service (e.g.
www.proctoru.com) is also available, but probably too expensive to be used by individual
instructors. Bedford, Gregg, and Clinton (2009) quoted a price of $150 per computer and
$30 annual license fee. Despite the fees, one proctoring company’s business grew 900%
after the campus shut down. Another proctoring company doubled its staff. Moreover, 77%
of 312 institutions surveyed were planning to have online tests with some sort of remote
monitoring (Hubler, 2020).
The use of all these detecting devices are not without concerns. Some students and
professors find it an invasion of privacy when a professor asks a student to scan the room
and the desk. Others point out that the requirement of the use of such devices does not take
into consideration of rural or low-income students who may not have fast-speed Internet
connection (Hubler, 2020). In addition, Lee-Post and Hakpe (2017) argue that preventing
online cheating should be a two-leg prone. Other than the devices to enforce that cheating
can be caught, it is equally important to educate students clearly and specifically about
academic integrity and encourage them to develop self-regulation.
ORAL PRESENTATION IN L2 CONTEXT
The detrimental effect of cheating as relying on scripts/notes against regulations is low-
quality presentation. However, the far-reaching consequences of such cheating may not be
fully recognized till one has a comprehensive understanding of the nature of oral
presentation, its origin and the indispensable role it plays in L2 education, the underlining
theories, and the best practices.
Standards in L2 Education. Oral presentation has had a long history in at least
communication courses in the Western education system, signified by the founding of the
National Association of Academic Teachers of Public Speaking in 1914 (National
Communication Association, n.d.).
International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning
129
Today, oral presentations are widely used in both academic settings (Doree, Jardine,
& Linton, 2007; Zappa-Hollman, 2007) and the business world (Fallows & Steven, 2000).
It is common for many undergraduate and graduate L2 courses to have oral presentations
as part of the course requirements. The Hart Research Associates (2015) conducted an
online survey among 400 employers. 85% ranked effective oral communication as the
number one skill needed. Almost all other references listed in this study mention the
usefulness and prevalence of oral presentations.
In the L2 field, it was only until the end of last century before presentation was brought
to prominence within the fundamental change in L2 education pedagogy. It all started in
the late 1970s and 1980s, when theories such as Mikhail Bahktin’s dialogic theory of the
ongoing interrelationship between utterances, and the sociolinguistic theory of Lev
Vygotsky laid the foundation for change from decontextualized language instruction to
proficiency-based language teaching, that is teaching students the ability to use language
in real life. Ideally, the instructor’s role went from explaining linguistic features followed
by drills to providing authentic opportunities of communication in which the instructor
scaffolds learners to gradually develop language automaticity (Phillips, 2008), that is using
L2 effortlessly and instantaneously as one does with L1. Automaticity, of course, may not
occur in the period of time of formal education.
In this large context of the communicative pedagogy, the American Council of
Teachers of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) introduced, what had been used in the field of
communication, the three modes of communication: interpretive, interpersonal, and
presentational mode, first in 1996 and then in 1999 in the publication of Standards for
Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (Council of Foreign Language Teachers,
2006). Interpersonal communication refers to conversational exchange; interpretive
communication refers to understanding, interpreting, and analyzing what is heard or read,
while presentational communication refers to oral or written presentation with a goal to
inform, explain, or persuade the audience. These three essential modes are not isolated
linguistic events. For instance, in a conversation, one needs to interpret what the other is
saying. Although oral presentation is not conversational exchange, it is misleading to
assume that it is not interactive with others. Quigley, Hendrix, and Freisem (1998) state
that it is useful to think of public speaking as a dynamic process that is interactive and
rhetorical in nature (p. 62). The dimensions of presentation include speaking in the first
person (I or we) to the audience as “you”, conducting questions and answers, or discussion
between the presenter and audience (Bunch, 2009; Nissler, 2014).
In his plenary speech about the national standards, Phillips (2008) called attention to
the interdisciplinary nature of the presentational mode. Citing courses in communication
department to include Interpersonal Communication, Rhetoric and Persuasion, Public
Speaking and the like, Phillips argued that communication is not so much divided by the
traditional 4 modalities of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, but by the
differentiated speech contexts.
Theories Underlying the Communicative Pedagogy in L2 Education. Bakhtin and
Vygosky stand out in the change of theoretical perceptions of language. In his Dialogic
Imagination (1981), first published in 1975, Bakhtin proposes the idea that in literature, a
work is in ongoing dialogue with other works, and that the meaning of any work is not
static but dynamic as the dialogue continues. In communication, Bakhtin applies the
dialogic theory to an utterance as in the same dialogic relationship with what has been
uttered and what will be uttered.
The other theory that helps understand why communicative use of language is vital for
language development comes from Vygosky, who argues, Thought and Language (1986),
that language develops from private speech--not consciously meant for communication—
to communication with others or in social interactions. What is not communicated socially
Prevent Cheating in Online Oral Presentation
130
belongs to inner speech. It is in social interactions that one develops strategies of
communication, and to learn how to be cooperative or collaborative. Elaine Tarone (2007),
a well-known U.S. linguist, elaborates the sociolinguistic theory of language acquisition.
She states, by citing various empirical studies, that a sociolinguistic approach to language
learning examines the relationship between social contexts—such as interlocutors, topic,
task, time, purpose of communication, norms of behavior, learner intention, role—and the
use of a learner’s language or L2, a use that varies with the context. As a learner says “I
speak differently to my friends than I do to my parents. It’s almost a whole different
language” (as cited in Tarone, 2007, p. 838). A learner, as a social being, processes his/her
L2 choices of language incessantly in interacting with different others. Social contexts can
also affect the order of acquisition as demonstrated by a longitude study of the language
development of a child (Vygosky, 1986).
Oral Presentation Standards in L2 Education. The communicative pedagogy
includes a switch to authentic assessment, as in competence and performance assessment.
Canale and Swain (1980) explain the differences between communicative competence
and performance--the latter is the actual language use or realization of competence. They
define communicative competence as a relationship between three integrated
competences: grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic (such as how to old the floor).
Of the three the sociolinguistic competence in context is crucial. In her study of various
forms of oral performance assessments, Chang (2009) defines performance assessment in
L2 context as “the direct, systemic observation of an actual learner performance and the
rating of that performance according to previously established performance
criteria”(p.55). Oral presentation, as a type of performance, should be assessed according
to its standards.
The National Council of Teachers of English’s oral presentation standards list eye
contact as the top criterion. It states that one should “hold attention of the entire audience
with the use of direct eye contact, seldom looking at notes”. Shrum and Glisan (2005), in
their well-known Teacher’s Handbook Contextualized Language Instruction, differentiate
presentation content from delivery, which refers to the manner in which one presents, to
emphasize how script/notes should be used. They state:
Key to effective presentation delivery is the use of notes. Presentations that
have impact are not read from a script, but rather are presented in a more
extemporaneous form where the presenter use notes periodically as a guide in
remembering the order of ideas to be discussed. Presentations that are totally
memorized and read like the evening news scripts on television are lacking
impact and are often difficult for students in the class to comprehend because
they lack natural pauses and other features of more extemporaneous speech
that facilitate comprehension (p. 302; also Quigley, et al., 1998).
Even in practice of presentation, using the whole script is not recommended. Instead,
students can present their topics and outlines during practice. Students should be given
explicit guidelines and have ample practice while receiving feedback before they are
assessed (Shrum & Glisan, 2005).
ANXIETY IN ORAL PRESENTATION
One of the causes of lack of eye contact, heavy reliance on notes, and memorization of
the speech is public speech anxiety (PSA), a research subject of its own beyond the scope
of the present study. This section, nonetheless, will discuss PSA briefly.
International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning
131
PSA is defined as “situation-specific social anxiety that arises from the real or
anticipated enactment of an oral presentation” (Bodie, 2010). PSA can be biologically
based and nearly impossible to change (Beatty et al., 2011; McCroskey, 1972).
Nonetheless, anxiety is not necessarily a negative factor. Nash, Crimmins, and Oprescu
(2016) point out that presentation anxiety is common. If it is not overwhelming, it will
motivate and energize the presenter. Practice can also reduce anxiety for some students.
Rarick (2010) teaches upper-level German courses to interdisciplinary students. He
points out that relying on handouts or written PPTs during presentation delivery is some
students’ way of dealing with speech anxiety. A method to help these students is to inform
them at the beginning stage of a presentation assignment that presentation is not “reading
exercise”, that they should not have complete sentences in the PPT and are not allowed to
have more than one index card. These expectations gave students a good orientation for
their presentation preparation.
Yook and Seiler’s interview (1990) of students from Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia and
other Asian countries in American speech courses reveals that due to the fact that English
was their L2, these students tend to read their speech drafts many times trying to memorize
them during practice. Yet memorization did not help reduce their anxiety, because in
students’ own words “if you memorize, once you lose a word you panic and stammer” (p.
60).
Tsang (2020) surveyed 211 college students in Hong Kong and interviewed six
representative students. The students think practicing the delivery of a speech in the main
does not help to reduce anxiety. The author thinks that this lack of correlation with anxiety
is due to not knowing how to practice effectively. Most students practiced individually, but
as they faced the audience, their fear returned. One interviewed student suggested an
effective method of practicing in front of a mirror. This study implies that if students were
given the opportunities to practice in a small group, it might reduce their anxiety. In regard
to notecards, the survey showed that body language was strongly correlated with feelings
of anxiety. Less presentation-experienced students tend to have note cards in hand to feel
secure, but having note cards makes hand shaking more noticeable. The audience have
noticed that some presenters even crumple their notecards. One experienced student said
that because of the hand conspicuousness, she tried to present without cards.
MEANINGFULLY VARIED PRESENTATION PRACTICE TO PROMOTE
DEVELOPMENT OF AUTOMATICITY
If impactful oral presentations are not memorized speech, if the right ways of practice
may reduce anxiety, students will need ample time and various ways of practice, as baby
steps towards L2 automaticity or automatic fluency in the long run. Rossiter Derwing,
Manimtim, and Thomson (2010) define automatic fluency as “a performance phenomenon
related to flow, continuity, automaticity, or smoothness of speech” (p.584). Gatbonton and
Segalowitz (2005) explain the same concept as “the smooth and rapid production of
utterances without undue hesitations” (p. 326; also VanPatten, 1999), or an effortless and
fast activation of brain processing in response to a stimulus---audio, visual input (Schneider
& Chein, 2003). Automaticity normally is arrived by massive amount of practice, or
“consistently mapping the same thing encountered or done under the same conditions
repeatedly” (Ellis, 2009; VanPatten, 1999, p.121). The researchers choose automaticity or
automatic fluency over fluency per se because for many L2 students if they speak too fast,
their messages may not be clear or hard to understand. Of course, speaking too slowly
while thinking about what word to use exacerbate audience as well (Quigley, et al., 1998).
Garbati and Mady (2015), based on their research of the best practices of development
of oral proficiency, point out that L2 learners need to go beyond conversational language
Prevent Cheating in Online Oral Presentation
132
to include such languages as academic language to develop their oral proficiency to higher
levels (also Nissler, 2014). Higher proficiency can only be achieved through extensive
language production. “Although many communicative language teaching (CLT)
classrooms promote general fluency, they do not provide the repetition necessary to achieve
automatic fluency” (p. 585), or they tend to revert to non-communicative means to provide
repetition (Garbati & Mady, 2015).
Gatbonton and Segalowitz (2005) elaborate on how to build up automatic fluency in
communicative activities rather than decontextualized repetition, such as pattern drills
(also VanPatten 1999, p. 122). To help students reach automatic fluency in meaningful
communication, the authors propose three criteria. First, the activity is genuinely
communicative, or a genuine communication that can happen in real life. Second, inherent
repetitiveness is built into numerous opportunities of practice. Third, functional or context-
specific formulaic is also built into the practice, to promote long-term use.
One instance that fits into the criteria is Prichard and Ferreira’s poster presentation
assignment (2014). Based on a research of the positive effect of repetition on the
development of automatic fluency, the authors assigned low and intermediate students in
different classes either class presentation or poster presentation of a tourist site. The poster
had key words and images. The presentation script was 10-15 sentences. The classes that
did the poster presentations presented the same content 6 times to different classmates as
audience, similar to poster presentations at conferences. The purpose of the article is not
just to promote poster presentations, but to drive the point that repetitions do work to
improve automatic fluency. The presentation of a tourist site has an integrated or “higher-
order” meaning of the attraction of the site, far beyond the meaning of individual words.
The presentations were also with real yet different audience in context, and thus can more
effectively improve the recall rate than drill repetition (pp. 111-113). A similar presentation
in rotated groups was also mentioned in Knight (2018)’s article about using Moxtra to
create presentations, and in Rossiter et al. (2010).
In other words, if students increase presentation practices, they can also improve their
automatic fluency. Ellis (2009) states that for “repetition to have an effect on acquisition”
“feedback on their initial performance” is needed. The researchers would like to add that
early feedback is an important part of scaffolding, but scaffolding should continue beyond
the initial feedback. Nissler (2014) shared his experience of scaffolding presentations in
his Spanish and German classes. He had students first write a detailed outline, then have
mini practice sessions, such as presenting synopsis to a fellow student, including
introduction, why choosing the topic, rough structure, and conclusion. A follow up activity
is to give summaries to a fellow student.
Along with automatic fluency may be improvement of accuracy, Rafie, et al. (2015)
did a measure of accuracy via four different oral presentation assignments for 40 students
at the advanced level of English in Iran. Each group had 10 students. All students were
given the same reading material to read for the same length of time, followed by students’
individual oral presentation about the reading. One of the four groups was a rehearsed
group which did the assignment twice with an interval of two weeks. This group’s average
accuracy (highest percentage of error-free clauses) was the highest.
Despite all these benefits of meaningful presentation practice, if students are not
motivated to practice, as in believing reading a script does not affect assessment, it is hard
to reap the benefits.
TECHNOLOGY IN ORAL PRESENTATION
Using technology to enhance oral presentation is common, such as the use of images,
videos, and graphics (Barrett & Liu, 2019; Kress, 2010; Morell, 2015) to model, practice,
or deliver the presentation.
International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning
133
Salem (2019) experimented using TED (Technology, Entertainment, and Design) talks
as oral presentation models for his Egyptian ESL students to imitate, followed by giving
“a similar presentation of their own”. Viewing confident speakers helped students gain
confidence. A similar experiment using TED as models was also successfully conducted
in an EAP (English for Academic Purposes) public speaking course in a Malaysian college
(Seau, Azman, & Noor 2018).
Yet in the use of technology, it could be harder for the presenter to build a good
interactive relationship with the audience. For instance, PPTs are intended to enhance the
audience’s interest in the presented messages and or to help the audience understand the
messages. However, some students’ PPTs often have too much text, hard for the audience
to view, but easy for the students to read aloud (Barrett & Liu, 2019; Murugaiah, 2016).
Moulton, Turkay, and Kosslyn (2017) tested out which of the three forms of presentation
audience prefer: Prezi, PPT or oral presentation without visual aids. Despite of the fact
Prezi outranked PPT as the most preferred (52% over 49%), neither forms of presentation
showed the presenter and therefore hard to know if the presenter relied on scripts/notes.
43% of the audience preferred being able to see the presenter. 29% of 43% of the audience
felt that the presenter engaged them with better attention, and 14% valued the eye contact
interaction.
In her distance learning L2 class, Murugaiah used Pecha Kucha presentation to get her
students away from the problem of crowding the PPT. Pecha Kucha allows for up to 20
slides consisted mostly of pictures or graphs to be presented in less than 7 minutes. Three
students said when PPT has only pictures, the audience must listen instead of reading words
from the slides because they do not know what the pictures are about (p. 96). Nonetheless,
Murugaiah reported that many students still depended on hand-held notes. Four students
reported that they had to practice really hard to memorize the text for the presentation.
Applying experiential learning theory (experiencing, reflection, and generalization) to
oral presentations as situated learning experience, Li (2018) experimented using taped
presentations for college Chinese students of English to self-assess their performance.
Students were given seven skills to assess at the end of the first and last presentation. When
students were watching themselves giving presentations, what they noticed the most was
the use of non-verbal elements such as eye contact. Out of the 15 times non-verbal elements
were mentioned, six were about eye contact. In terms of students’ comment on the progress
they made, eye contact ranked second to body posture. The instructor did not give the
students a presentation checklist to reflect on. Nonetheless, from untrained audience point
of view, the quality and frequency of eye contact appears to be the most noticeable, and
thus constitutes a key in the interpersonal relationship between the presenter and audience.
The use of technology underlines the importance of eye contact with the audience, and
the inseparable minimized reliance on scrip/notes during oral presentation, as well as the
tremendous challenges students experience to maintain eye contact.
THIS RESEARCH—PREVENT CHEATING IN ONLINE ORAL
PRESENTATION
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The above literature review makes it clear the significant role oral presentation plays
in L2 education. Quality oral presentation depends on familiarity with the order and content
of the speech via multiple types of meaningful practices: self, pair, and group. In the face-
to-face classroom, it is easy to safeguard the standards of presentation. Cheating in terms
of impersonation, reading the script, or heavy reliance on notes against course regulations
Prevent Cheating in Online Oral Presentation
134
is detectable, as the audience can see the presenter clearly in person. However, echoing
many scholars’ concern previously mentioned, in the online environment, especially with
the use of visual aids, how are the standards protected? How does a L2 instructor ensure
the quality and fairness of oral presentation? If it is not ensured, adverse effects on practice
are likely to occur, and in the long run detrimental to the development of automaticity. It
is in this online and grave context that the researchers investigated the following questions
by means of action research.
1. In the online environment, what instruments can be used to let the audience see the
presenter clearly to judge if the presenter relies heavily on notes?
2. Are there any drawbacks with the use of the instruments?
METHODOLOGY
The Context. This action research was conducted after campus shut down due to
COVAD 19. The two researchers were also instructors who taught courses at two different
universities, courses that require students to do oral presentations. Both instructors raised
concerns about sustaining oral presentation standards online, where it was very hard to
determine how much students were relying on script/notes. The two instructors decided to
carry out reflective practice in class to find out useful instruments to help protect the
standards. Instructor A and B will be used in the following discussion to protect students’
identities.
Instructor A’s course was organized thematically. Based on the best of oral presentation
practices described in the literature review, each theme went through the stages of presentation
assignment, sample discussions of the theme with listening and reading material in Mandarin,
sharing orally of (a) presentation topics, (b) structure of the script of the topic, (c) specific instances
of the topic in a number of class sessions, drafting the scripts, revising in class, while receiving
detailed comments from the instructor at all stages. In the subsequent class, students did
presentations.
The course incorporated six oral presentations, four of which were completed before the class
went online. The length of the presentations went from three minutes near the beginning to five
minutes towards the end of the course. 25% of the course grade was towards oral presentations.
Each presentation included a question and answer period at the end, where all other students were
required to ask a different but relevant question to the presenter. Because notes and eye contact were
the top standards for oral presentation, the grading criteria in the assignment asked students not to
look at anything written, not to have characters in the PPT, and to keep good eye contact with the
audience. The reason that students were not allowed to look at any written material at all, rather than
occasional glance is that they were given multiple opportunities of forming and practicing their
speech, and the presentation is not lengthy. Please see Appendix A for a full list of the criteria.
Instructor B’s course was an intensive speech course, emphasizing overcoming communication
apprehension, and developing language proficiency through learning the content of public speaking.
The course was organized by five types of formal speeches: descriptive, informative, introductory,
persuasive, and speech for special occasions. Students did six speeches to present their hometown,
an inspiring story of a person, the geographical outlook of a country, persuasion of others to
reexamine their opinions, welcoming address of new students and appreciation speech when
receiving an award.
The length of each speech is 6-7 minutes, followed by a 2-3 minute Q & A section. The six
speech makes up 40% of the course grade. The grading criteria includes six categories: beginning
of the speech, body of the speech, conclusion of the speech, delivery, language perspective, and
handling questions. Please refer to Appendix B for details in each category. The delivery category,
also following the standards in the literature review, asked students to “maintain eye contact” which
implied that they should not rely heavily on script/notes during their speech.
To complete each speech, incorporating some of the best practices, students went through the
stages of (a) receiving speech assignment with grading rubric, (b) preparing language related to the
speech, (c) watching related public speech videos, (d) drafting full-sentence outline, (e) individually
International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning
135
meeting with the instructor to discuss the outline, (f) revising the draft and creating a Quizlet of new
words learned from the speech, (g) practicing the speech by listening to the instructor’s recording
of the student speech, (h) delivering the speech, and (i) taking quiz on the new words in the Quizlet
immediately after the presentation. Both instructors also hoped that the process of presentation
practice would help reduce anxiety.
Participants. Participants include eight college age students (five females and three
males) who started learning Chinese in the States, and two were Mexican Americans. Two
students studied in Taiwan for six-eight weeks, and two had a short visit to China. Based
on observation, students’ language proficiency was probably in the intermediate range.
RESEARCH PROCESS
In accordance with Kemmis’ (1988) action research guidelines showing a process of
“reconnaissance, planning, first action step, monitoring, reflection, rethinking, and
evaluation” (as cited in Mills, 2003, p.16), this research underwent a process of three
progressive cycles as described in Figure 1 below, namely, after identifying the general
problem, each cycle has a general plan (2nd and 3rd cycle also include testing the devices)
and action.
Figure 1. Research process illustration
Prevent Cheating in Online Oral Presentation
136
Identifying the Problem. After Instructor A switched class to a synchronous class in
Zoom, students did the last two presentations. For the first of the two, Instructor A used
the same criteria as those used in the face-to-face classroom. During the presentation, she
could see the PPTs as the full screen and the students in small windows in Zoom. Some
students’ voices sounded as if they were reading from script, but since she could not be
sure, the criterion of not looking at anything written was thrown out in the grading.
Instructor A also immediately noticed that in the online environment, multiple other factors
could raise suspicion of the presenter relying on script, to include tone of speech, eye
movement, and body movement. None of these factors, however, could constitute proof.
The small Zoom window that showed the identity of the presenter, a device against identity
fraud, is too small to clearly see the presenter’s eye movement. Even when the window
was enlarged afterwards, one still could not tell whether the presenter was relying on any
written material.
First General Plan. To address this issue, learning from the third party proctoring
services, Instructor A decided to use WeChat video call to remotely proctor the last
presentation, which was the course final. WeChat was not new to the students as the class
had been using WeChat as a group chat. Instructor A notified students in writing about the
use of the duo devices a week prior to the presentation.
At the final, you need to use two devices. One must be a cell phone with
WeChat, one can be your laptop or tablet or desktop computer. You need to
charge both devices to the full before the final.
We will use Zoom in your Canvas course website. Before you start your speech,
you need to show me that you do not have anything written in front of you.
When you speak, you need to make Zoom the full screen. When you speak, I
will use WeChat to monitor you.
“Zoom to full screen, and also use WeChat” was also added as a grading criterion.
Students certainly noticed the change in the criteria. One asked the instructor, ‘So, we
cannot look at the script at all,’ a question that had never been asked.
First Action Step. At the final presentation, Instructor A used the duo-device instrument
of WeChat video call in the cell phone as the proctor and Zoom in a computer as the
presentation screen in an attempt to ensure fairness and quality of presentation with the
participants.
The final presentation session began with all students already visible in Zoom video.
Each presentation began with the instructor asking the student to have the PPT in full Zoom
screen. Both the student and instructor then turned on the video call in WeChat. The
instructor then asked the student to use the video call to show where the student’s computer
was, the desk the computer was on, and the surrounding area such as the wall. After the
instructor was satisfied that there was nothing written visible, she asked the student to begin
presentation while proctoring it via WeChat.
The instructor successfully proctored three students from beginning to end. She could
see that two students definitely did not use any written aid. One was presenting in a
conversational style, obviously not having the script memorized, but the main content. One
seemed to have memorized the script well, indicated by the monotone from the beginning
to the end. The third student, the one who asked whether or not looking at the script/notes
was going to be insisted, did look at the script more than occasionally.
One unsuccessful proctoring occurred due loud echoes shortly after the student was
speaking, and the student asked the instructor to turn off WeChat. Because this was the
first time the instructor used the duo devices, she did not know why there was the echo,
when the other three presentations did not have this interference. A possibility could be
that she unknowingly switched between using the class group WeChat and one-on-one
WeChat video call to proctor. The former has a voice mute function, and the latter does
International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning
137
not. Even if the instructor was not able to see the student shortly after the beginning of the
presentation, the fourth student, did not seem to rely on the script either, as the student was
speaking extemporaneously, with pauses now and then as the student seemed to think what
to say next.
Instructor A in this first cycle of research was wondering whether a second device with
a larger screen could allow an even clearer view of the student.
Second General Plan. Instructor B taught the online speech course. Based on Instructor
A’s research reflection, Instructor B revised the general plan by using WeChat in iPad as a
bigger-screen proctoring tool, and adding Zoom presentation recordings to give her a
chance to review the recorded presentations carefully, paying close attention to students’
eye movement. Due to multitasking in operating her online class, Instructor B could use
the recording to avoid any inappropriate judgment made during the class, and to show part
of the recording to students for self-assessment or instructor feedback. Before action,
Instructor B tested her plan with multiple parties, including Instructor A. She found out
that WeChat one-on-one video call does not have a mute function and there was an echo.
However, she decided to try the plan in actual presentations to see how students’ phones
would react.
Second Action Step. The revised plan was implemented in Instructor B’s class
delivered in Zoom. Students were informed that their presentation would be recorded for
grading purpose and they needed to have their phone with WeChat available during the
presentation. Similar to Instructor A’s class, students were used to using WeChat as a
communication tool since day one. Because students were practicing public speaking skills
in this class, they were asked to stand up away from their computers, so that their hand
gestures and body movement could be entirely seen by the audience. Before each
presentation, Instructor B first asked the presenter to share his/her PowerPoint on the
screen, and then used her iPad to initiate a WeChat video call to the presenter. The presenter
switched on the WeChat video camera to show his/her surroundings, proving that no paper
with the presentation content was placed within sight.
When the presenter was ready, Instructor B started recording the Zoom meeting in the
gallery view which showed all participants in the class. She then asked the presenter to
mute the WeChat video call in his phone, and was trying to do the same on her iPad as
well. This was the experience learned from Instructor A. However, when the volume on
both the presenter’s and the instructor’s side was turned down to the lowest possible, there
was still an echo of the presenter’s voice which might be interfering with the audience’s
understanding of the presentation due to their proficiency level, even though Instructor B’s
comprehension of the speech was not affected at all. Despite all that, using iPad with a
much larger screen to proctor students surpassed WeChat in an iPhone. The video in the
instructor’s iPad had even better quality due to the high resolution of her iPad Air 2 screen
(9.7 inches, 1536 x 2048 pixels), comparing to her Dell Latitude 7480 computer screen (14
inches, 1920 x 1080 pixels) and iPhone 8 Plus (5.5 inches, 1920 X 1080 pixels).
The instructor also asked all students to turn on their microphones and video camera
so that they could join in a conversation immediately, enhancing the class interaction by
saving the time of turning on and off microphones and video cameras when students
wanted to participate. Another rationale in this second action was to create a best online
presentation environment in which the presenter and audience could have real-time
connection.
The drawback of having all students’ videos on was that the recorded gallery view
layout of Zoom was in small windows of the same size, very hard to see the presenter’s
eye movement, thus failing in reaching the goal of using recorded presentation to examine
whether students maintained eye contact with the audience. Is there a better mobile
application that can mute the sound when doing video call? Can Zoom video layout show
Prevent Cheating in Online Oral Presentation
138
a bigger view of the presenter while sharing presentation material as well? Instructor B
started to seek better solutions.
The instructor also learned that WeChat does not have a mute function. Even if one
mutes the iPhone, echoing can still occur due to the simultaneous use of the duo devices.
It could be coincidence that Instructor A did not experience the echo in the three
presentations in her class.
Third General Plan. Realizing that FaceTime is a default video call App on iPhones
and most American students are very familiar with how to use FaceTime, Instructor B
wondered if FaceTime can be completely muted, and if Zoom’s video layout can display
larger windows. In addition to testing FaceTime with Instructor A and a few other parties,
Instructor B tested it with each student in the one-on-one presentation practice with her.
From the testing, Instructor B learned that one student did not have an iPhone, but a
Samsung phone which has Android operating system. Since FaceTime App does not work
on Android phones, Instructor B tested Google Duo, a free video call App running both on
iPhone operating system and Android.
She also tested different Zoom video layouts and found that side-by-side layout could
display the presenter in a window half the size of a computer screen. From the testing,
Instructor B also found if non-presenters turned off Zoom microphone and video, the
presentation would have a better sound quality without any noise and the audience would
have a larger view of the presenter. All tests were successful to be further verified in the
last presentation.
Third Action Step. The third round of the research was carried out when students
delivered their final presentation. As soon as the class started, Instructor B reminded
students of the presentation procedures: (a) order of presentation and filling out peer review
forms, (b) off Zoom sound and video before another student’s presentation, (c) tuning
Zoom sound and video back on as soon as a presenter finishes his/her presentation and
starting Q & A section.
For the first three presentations, each presentation went through the following steps.
1. The presenter shared the PowerPoint in Zoom and positioned him/herself for
the audience to see.
2. The presenter FaceTimed Instructor B.
3. Instructor B answered the FaceTime call on her iPad, which showed a much
clearer view of the presenter, the surrounding, and that no writing material of
the speech was visible.
4. The presenter placed the phone at a right angle to make the instructor see the
face clearly.
5. Both the presenter and the instructor muted FactTime, so that no echo could
be heard.
6. Instructor B pressed Zoom recording button in the computer, changed Zoom
meeting display to the speaker view, and dragged the speaker view window
even larger for a better view.
Unlike the poor sound quality in the second research, this time the instructor could
clearly hear the presenter’s voice only through Zoom meeting since FaceTime was
completely muted. In addition, Instructor B could see the presenter clearly on her computer
and iPad from different angels. The three presentations proceeded successfully in the same
manner with the same desired quality of sound and video. As a side note, the resized screen
layout only took place in the instructor’s computer, not affecting students’ view of the
Zoom meeting. Students could see the presenter’s PowerPoint and the presenter because
only presenter’s microphone and video were turned on during a presentation.
The fourth student, the one who did not have an iPhone, successfully delivered his
presentation in Zoom in the computer, and used Google Duo in his Android phone to allow
International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning
139
Instructor B a larger and clearer view of him on her iPad as well. When Instructor B graded
the recorded presentations, she could see the video images side-by-side on her screen, the
presenter’s PowerPoint slides on the left and the presenter on the right. Instructor B could
clearly see the presenter’s facial expressions and eye movement, which helped her maintain
fairness in grading.
Overall, the third round of research was successful in using iPad as a proctor and using
speaker view with side-by-side layout in Zoom presentation recording in the computer. An
unexpected finding was that students do not always have the same mobile devices. Mobile
phones in Android operating system is not compatible with FaceTime, so more common,
dependable and cross-platform video call Apps like Google Duo, Skype and Facebook
Messenger could be explored in the future as a proctor tool in online oral presentation.
DISCUSSION
THE USE OF THE INSTRUMENTS
This action research, in order to explore the research question about the instruments
that instructors can use to detect whether students heavily rely on scripts during online oral
presentation, went through three cycles: from partial success of using duo devices
(computer and WeChat in iPhone) to let students present and instructor remotely proctor,
to increased success of using WeChat on a larger screen (in iPad) to proctor, to the third
cycle of complete success of using muted FaceTime in iPad to proctor. Meanwhile, in the
third cycle, Zoom split screen and recording tool made it possible for a clearer video
recording of the presenter, allowing the instructor opportunities to review the presentations
for fair grading and precise feedback. In addition to WeChat and FaceTime, Google Duo
was found to be useful for Android users.
In each cycle, the testing stage is crucial. It is a multi-party, multi-device testing
process. Had Instructor A tested with multiple parties using WeChat as the remote
proctoring device, she might have found out that some iPhones do not allow complete
mute. Had she tested WeChat in both iPhone and iPad, she might also have found out that
iPad allows for larger view of the presenter. Had she done testing, she would have used
WeChat in iPad to proctor in the first place. The reason that this action research became
more and more successful was largely due to the fact that the instructors tested the planned
device multiple times and with multiple parties, especially with students in the 3rd cycle.
The testing helped avoid technical problems during presentations and thus made the
presentations go smoothly with the use of the second device. Meantime, when students are
brought into testing in their practice, it may help reduce their anxiety during presentation.
DRAWBACKS
Our second research question is to examine if there any drawbacks when using a
second device to proctor students during online presentation. Although no student
complained about the use of the duo devices to proctor the presentation, the use can have
drawbacks. Firstly, some may also feel it is an invasion of privacy since some students can
only be in an online class in their bedrooms, as in the case of sharing an apartment with
other students. True that the use of the duo-device was only periodical in the course, but
the researchers feel that at the time of assignment an instructor should spend adequate
amount of time explaining to and discussing with students why the use of duo devices is
necessary for ensuring honesty and fairness for all, and to act as an encouragement for
multiple presentation practices.
Prevent Cheating in Online Oral Presentation
140
Secondly, the use of the duo devices may need faster Internet connection, which may
cost money to upgrade. These two drawbacks are consistent with the concerns of 3rd-party
proctoring in the literature review. Thirdly, the duo-devise use can add anxiety or
nervousness to the students, thus affecting their overall performance. Instead of
immediately preceding to the presentation itself, the student had to pause for a minute to
help establish remote proctoring. Fourthly, in the third action, when the presenter could not
see the audience, the presenter’s contact with the audience is limited to the use of PPT. In
other words, the success in the desired recording was achieved at the sacrifice of real-time
connection with audience. Future research may continue to improve the ways of instructor
remote proctoring in online oral presentation.
FURTHER REFLECTION AND SUGGESTIONS
This action research successfully allowed the instructor to remotely proctor the
presentations, and has three-dimensional implications for future improvement of students’
online oral presentation. Specifically, improvements can be made to the preparation stages
of (a) writing outline and presentation practice, (b) specifications in grading criteria for the
online presentation, and (c) technical suggestions. These improvements may help
discourage students’ from cheating during online oral presentation.
In this study, both instructors required students to write full sentence outlines or scripts.
However, writing out the full sentence outline or script may not be the best method for
developing automaticity. If the instructor did not warn students that they should not
memorize the script or that they should speak in a conversation style, such outlines or script
may inadvertently promote memorization, since students know the outline or script is
correct. If students are not well prepared, they may forget words and thus they are likely to
rely heavily on what is written. If students only have outlines which highlight the order of
the speech, and the relationship between points and examples in phrases, key words, and
or some in full sentences, students are likely to practice figuring out what exactly to say,
and therefore at the presentation they are more likely to focus on the main content and
speak extemporaneously.
Although both instructors provided students time and opportunities to practice speech
before presentation, increased oral scaffolding is much needed. The instructor could add a
class session of small group presentations before the final presentation in class, so that
students can get peer feedback as well as seeking feedback from the instructor by asking
questions. Meanwhile, the instructor can increase student practice with the instructor—in
office, in real time online, or upload a recording of the presentation--for feedback. Students
can thus get assistance during the process of forming messages. Instructors should make
known that one should use conversational language in all practice. These types of oral
scaffolding will prepare students to be more fluent, so that they are likely to be more
confident during presentation without feeling that they need to reply on notes.
In regard to specifications in grading criteria for the presentation, the question and answer
period of the presentation can be extended to include instructor’s questions and a general
discussion of the content of the presentation, in conjunction with increasing the weight of
the performance in grading. If a student relies heavily on the script, it will be hard for the
student to address the questions well. Very likely, the student can only reiterate what is in
the script.
Digital technology is developing rapidly with a proliferation of mobile video chat
Apps. In this action research, two instructors tested WeChat, FaceTime, and Google Duo
on a second device that allowed them to proctor students remotely during online oral
presentations. Among these tested Apps, Google Duo was found to be the best choice so
far because of its compatibility with different mobile operating systems. According to
Digital Trends (Bacchus, 2019), Google Duo, since its first demo in 2016, has been quickly
International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning
141
developed with many fun features (for instance, capture special moments during the video
call and add AR effects to text messages) to fit iOS, Android, Chromebooks, and even on
the web from any PC and Mac without needing to link a phone number. The two instructors
further tested two Microsoft video chat Apps of Skype and Teams. They are pleased to find
out these two video chat Apps are accessible not only in the U.S, but also in China at the
current time, on both iOS and Android mobile phones. Please see Appendix C for a
comparison of eight popular video chat Apps in six aspects: supported platform, maximum
number of free video call participants, instant messaging possibility, languages, file sharing
possibility, and regional availability.
CONCLUSION
This paper has explained heavy reliance on script/notes in oral presentations in L2
classes online is a serious problem in the context of the origin, and role L2 oral presentation
plays, and how presentation standards and best practices should promote the development
of oral automaticity. To discourage students from such action in the online environment,
proctoring devices should be utilized.
This action research underwent three cycles of applying technological tools for remote
proctoring by the instructor, instead of using the service of a third party company. Each
application successfully led to a better solution and a new discovery of technological tools.
Not all instructors may have iPad for the larger and clearer view of the student presenter.
Not all regions or countries of the world share the same technological devices, or the same
devices may not have the same capabilities. No matter what tools instructors choose to
adopt, it is critical to test the function of technology tools, especially with students, before
using them in class. Language instructors, while teaching online, need to develop an ability
to learn about capabilities and usages of new technology tools, and to be ready to embrace
both challenges and opportunities that new technology can bring to the language class.
Hopefully this small but progressively successful action research will encourage other
instructors to continue the thread of discussion of online integrity, and its role in improving
quality of L2 education, as well as searching for more possibilities of the duo device use.
As better technology continues to be developed, more powerful Apps or other types of
tools maybe available to help cheating prevention. The researchers recognize the ongoing
nature of their research and look forward to a time when one device can allow both oral
presentation and remote proctoring.
REFERENCES
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. Michael Holquist.
Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin and London: University of Texas
Press.
Barrett, N. E., & Liu, G. Z. (2019). Factors that influence the development and performance
of academic oral presentations: Changes, challenges, and opportunities for learning
technology. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1227-1271.
Beatty, M. J., Heisel, A. D., Lewis, R. J., Pence, M. E., Reinhart, A., & Tian, Y. (2011).
Communication apprehension and resting alpha range asymmetry in the Anterior
Cortex. Communication Education, 60 (40), 441–460.
Bedford, W., Gregg J., & Clinton, S. (2009). Implementing technology to prevent online
cheating: A case study at a small southern regional university (SSRU). MERLOT
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 230-238. Retrieved July 2, 2020, from
https://www.berkeleycitycollege.edu/wp/de/what-is-academic-dishonesty,
Bodie, G. D. 2010. A racing heart, rattling knees, and ruminative thoughts: defining,
Prevent Cheating in Online Oral Presentation
142
explaining, and treating public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 59(1), 70.
Bucchus, A. (2019). Google Duo video chat app makes the jump from mobile to the web.
Digital trends. https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/google-duo-video-chat-now-
available-on-the-web/
Bunch, G. 2009. “Going up there”: Challenges and opportunities for language minority
students during a mainstream classroom speech event. Linguistics and Education, 20,
81–108.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Chang, Y. Y. (2009). A study of college EFL students’ affective reactions and attitudes
toward two types of performance-based oral tests. Journal of Education Studies, 43(2),
55-80.
Council of Foreign Language Teachers. (2006). Standards for foreign language learning in
the 21th century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press.
Doree, S., Jardine, R., & Linton, T. (2007). Let’s talk about student presentations. PRIMUS,
17(4), 338-352.
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency,
complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509.
Fallows, S., & Steven, C. (2000). Building employability skills into the higher education
curriculum: A university-wide initiative. Education & Training, 42(2), 75-83.
Galindo, C., Gregori, P., & Martínez, V. (2020). Using videos to improve oral presentation
skills in distance learning engineering master's degrees. International Journal of
Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(1), 103-114.
Garbati, J. F., & Mady, C. (2015). Oral skill development in second languages: a review in
search of best practices. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5, 1763-1770.
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A
focus on access to fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(3), 325-53.
Hart Research Associates. (2015). Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success.
Retrieved: https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015employerstudents
urvey.pdf.
Hubler, S. (2020, May 11). Big brother is watching your final exams. New York Times, p.
A 12.
Knight, T. (2018). Using the digital storytelling app and software Moxtra to extend student
presentations beyond the classroom. In P. Taalas, J. Jalkanen, L. Bradley & S.
Thouësny (Eds), Future-proof CALL: Language learning as exploration and
encounters – short papers from EUROCALL, 2018 (pp. 142-146). Research-
publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.26.827
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary
communication. London, England: Routledge.
Lee-Post, A., & Hapke, H. (2017). Online learning integrity approaches: Current practices
and future solutions. Online Learning, 21(1), 135-145.
Li, X. (2018). Teaching English oral presentations as a situated task in an EFL classroom:
A quasi-experimental study of the effect of video-assisted self-reflection. Estudios De
Lingustica, 51 (98), 360-381.
McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication‐bound anxiety. Speech Monographs,
37(4), 269-277.
Meier, B., & M. Griffin. (2005). Stealing the Future: Corruption in the classroom. Berlin:
Transparency International.
Mills, E., G. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (2
nd
ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Morell, T. (2015). International conference paper presentations: A multimodal analysis to
International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning
143
determine effectiveness. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 135-150.
Moulton, S. T., Turkay, S., Kosslyn, S. M. (2017). Does a presentation’s medium affect its
message? PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations. PLoS ONE, 12 (7), 1-39.
Murugaiah, P. (2016). Pecha Kucha style Powerpoint presentation: An innovative call
approach to developing oral presentation skills of tertiary students. Teaching English
with Technology, 16(1), 88-104.
Nash, G., Crimmins, G., & Oprescu, F. (2016). If first-year students are afraid of public
speaking assessments what can teachers do to alleviate such anxiety? Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(4), 586-600.
National Communication Association. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved June 29, 2020, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Communication_Association
National Council of Teachers of English. (2004). Oral presentation rubric. Retrieved June
22, 2020, from http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/printouts/30700_rubric.
pdf.
Nissler, P. (2014). Scaffolding a presentation: Comments from Spanish and German.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(4), 723-730.
Phillips, J. (2008). Foreign language standards and the contexts of communication.
Language Teaching. 41(1), 93–102.
Prichard, C., & Ferreira, D. (2014). The effects of poster presentations and class
presentations on low proficiency learners. TESOL Journal, 5(1), 172-185.
Quigley, B. L., Hendrix, K. G., & Freisem, K. (1998). Graduate teaching assistant training:
Preparing instructors to assist ESL students in the introductory public speaking course.
Basic Communication Course Annual, 10, 58-89.
Rafie, Z. F., Ragmany, R, & Sadeqi, B. (2015). The differential effects of three types of
task planning on the accuracy of l2 oral production. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 6(6), 1297-1304.
Rarick, D. (2010). The student-centered classroom made real: transforming student
presentations in an advanced course on technical German. Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching
German, 43(1), 61-69.
Rossiter, M. L., Derwing, T.M., Manimtim, L. G., & Thomson, R. I.(2010). Oral fluency
in the neglected communicative language classroom. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 66(4), 583-606.
Salem, A. A. M. S. (2019). A sage on a stage, to express and impress: TED Talks for
improving oral presentation skills, vocabulary retention and its impact on reducing
speaking anxiety in ESP settings. English Language Teaching, 12 (6), 146-160.
Schneider, W., & Chein, J.M. (2003). Controlled & automatic processing: behavior, theory,
and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science, 27, 525-559.
Seau, L. S., Azman, H., & N. M., Noor. (2018). A responsive pedagogical initiative for
multimodal oral presentation skills: An action research study. The Southeast Asian
Journal of English Language Studies, 24(2), 29-42.
Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2005). Teacher’s handbook contextualized language
instruction. 3
rd
ed. Boston: Thomson and Heinle.
Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research—
1997-2007. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 838-48.
Tatum, H. E., Schwartz, B. M., Hageman, M.C., & Koretke, S. L. (2018). College students’
perceptions of and responses to academic dishonesty: An investigation of type of honor
code, institution size, and student–faculty ratio. Ethics & Behavior, 28(4), 302–315.
Teixeira , A., & Rocha, M. (2010). Cheating by economics and business undergraduate
students: an exploratory international assessment. Higher Education, 59(6), 663-701.
Tsang, A. (2020). The relationship between tertiary-level students’ self-perceived
presentation delivery and public speaking anxiety: A mixed-methods study. Assessment
Prevent Cheating in Online Oral Presentation
144
& Evaluation in Higher Education, p.1-13. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1718601
VanPatten, B. (1999). Cognitive characteristics of adult second language learners. In
Byrnes, H. (Ed.), Learning Foreign and Second Languages Perspectives in Research
and Scholarship (2
nd
ed. pp.105-127). MLA.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
U.S. Department of Educaton. (2008). Higher Education Opportunity Act–2008. Retrieved
July 29, 2020, from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/ hea08/index.html
Yook, E., & Seiler, W. (1990). An investigation into the communication needs and concerns
of Asian students in speech communication performance classes. Basic
Communication Course Annual, 2, 47-75.
Zappa-Hollman, S. (2007). Academic presentations across post-secondary contexts: the
discourse socialization of non-native English speakers. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 63(4), 455-485.
APPENDIX A
Presentation Criteria for Face-to-Face Classes
1. Prepare a vocabulary list: must be in excel format with characters, pinyin, and
English
2. Prepare specific PPTs with only pictures, cartoons, drawings, but no words
3. Voc list and PPTs must be uploaded to Canvas assignments by midnight the day
before presentation
4. At presentation, not looking at anything written
5. Presentation is organized with transitional words
6. At presentation, PPT advancement synchronizes with what you say
7. Presented all the points of your writing
8. Presentation is in Chinese; names can be in English
9. Presentation is clear
10. Presentation is specific, with examples
11. Presentation is without repetition
12. Presentation on time
13. Good eye contact with the audience
14. Good pronunciation: including correct pauses
15. Good grammar, avoiding basic and previous errors
16. Fluent, no hesitation
17. Ask at least one question related to each presenter’s presentation
18. Answer questions to the point specifically; if you do not know, you can provide
answers next class
19. Meet the minimum time requirement
International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning
145
APPENDIX B
Instructor B’s Oral Presentation Grading Rubric
Speaker: _________________________ Evaluator: ______________________
Beginning of the speech: Weak Strong Comments:
Gained attention and interest __ __ __ __ __
Related topic to audience __ __ __ __ __
Clear preview of main focus __ __ __ __ __
Body of the speech:
Main points clear __ __ __ __ __
Supporting material adequate __ __ __ __ __
Transitions clear __ __ __ __ __
Conclusion of the speech:
Sense of closure without a rushing end __ __ __ __ __
Summary clear __ __ __ __ __
Delivery:
Speak for full 6-7 minutes __ __ __ __ __
Maintained eye contact __ __ __ __ __
Facial Expression engaging __ __ __ __ __
Avoided distracting mannerisms __ __ __ __ __
Visual aids appropriate & effective __ __ __ __ __
PPT only with pictures or a few words__ __ __ __ __
Variety in voice (no monotone) __ __ __ __ __
Conversational style __ __ __ __ __
Enthusiasm for topic __ __ __ __ __
Voice projected/volume __ __ __ __ __
Language Perspective
Correct pronunciation __ __ __ __ __
Articulated words clearly __ __ __ __ __
Correct grammar __ __ __ __ __
Fluency without filler __ __ __ __ __
No other language but Chinese __ __ __ __ __
Handling Question
Politeness in response __ __ __ __ __
Quality of answers __ __ __ __ __
Comments:
1. What did the speaker do well?
2. What can the speaker improve upon?
Prevent Cheating in Online Oral Presentation
146
APPENDIX C
A Comparison of Popular Video Chat Applications
Apps
Maximum no.
of free video
call
participants
Instant
messaging
possibility
Languages
File
sharing
possibility
Regional
availability
FaceTime
32
-
65 (simplified
and
traditional
Chinese)
-
-
Facebook
Messenger
50
38
(simplified
and
traditional
Chinese)
-
Google Duo
12
-
-
-
-
Line
4
17
(simplified
and
traditional
Chinese)
-
Microsoft
Teams
250
26
(simplified
and
traditional
Chinese)
Skype
50
108 languages
(Chinese
simplified and
traditional)
WeChat
9
20 (simplified
and
traditional
Chinese)
WhatsApp
8
40 for iPhone
60 for
Android
(Chinese
simplified and
traditional)
-