628296

research-article2016
RERXXX10.3102/0034654316628296Barrett & LiuTrends for English Academic Oral Presentations

Review of Educational Research

December 2016, Vol. 86, No. 4, pp. 1227­–1271
DOI: 10.3102/0034654316628296
© 2016 AERA. http://rer.aera.net

Global Trends and Research Aims for

English Academic Oral Presentations:
Changes, Challenges, and Opportunities
for Learning Technology

Neil E. Barrett and Gi-Zen Liu

National Cheng Kung University

English has become the de facto language for communication in academia in

many parts of the world, but English language learners often lack the lan-
guage resources to make effective oral academic presentations. However,
English for academic purposes (EAP) research is beginning to provide valu-
able insights into this emerging field. This literature review is a systematic
overview of the research on EAP oral monologues and EAP monologues that
employ learning technology (LT). Three investigative aims were addressed in
the research: linguistic description of the final oral presentation, the learning
processes including learner attitudes toward the process, and LT for oral
monologues. Major findings included linguistic and discourse differences
among learners, experts, and native speakers; the need for specific guide-
lines and focused training; the role of multimodal resources; and the peda-
gogical affordances of the LT. Identified challenges, future research
directions, and instructional suggestions are provided for instructors and
researchers.

Keywords: EAP, English for specific purposes, learning technology, oral

academic presentations

Throughout the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the English language has
emerged as the world’s choice of language for academic and business interac-
tions, forming what has become an almost global language or lingua franca
(Canagarajah, 2006; Nickerson, 2013). For better or worse, in the business world,
the globalization of trade has made a common language almost a necessity.
Similarly, in reporting research findings, academics are being asked to present
and publish their work in English regardless of their first language, which pres-
sures both researchers and students to present in a language with which they are
not fully comfortable (Canagarajah, 2006; Crystal, 1997; Nickerson, 2013). In

1227
Barrett & Liu
English language teaching, there has been a shift toward teaching a more practical
style of English, known as English for academic purposes (EAP) or English for
specific purposes (ESP), which can give nonnative speakers specific language
tools that facilitate a presentation or help them discuss their academic work in
English.
In this article, we review the emerging research, findings, pedagogical impli-
cations, and challenges in this area and suggest some future research directions.
We also illustrate how learning technology (LT), with its attendant pedagogy,
can play a vital role in assisting students and instructors in developing and mas-
tering oral presentations. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic literature
reviews on EAP oral academic monologues or English language learning oral
monologues that incorporate LT have been conducted. Thus, this article should
be useful to researchers, instructors, and students who are interested in oral
presentations for EAP or in using LT for preparing language students for oral
monologues.
There is a need for EAP courses and English-mediated instruction around the
world, as many institutions now admit a growing body of international students
who require specific language skills for fields such as science and business
(Björkman, 2010; Crawford-Camiciottoli, 2005; Jenkins, 2011). Examples of pro-
grams include the European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of
University Students program, which sponsored students from over 4,000 univer-
sities to study abroad, and the Bologna Process, which has 47 member countries.
The Bologna Process prepares students to meet the professional demands of inter-
nationalization, including the communication needs of a global workplace (Kao
& Wang, 2013). In 2006, 30% of European universities offered one or more
courses taught in English, and in Finland and the Netherlands, the figure was
100% (Coleman, 2006). In Taiwan, National Cheng Kung University offers 496
English-mediated courses and had over 1,453 international students as of 2012,
highlighting how Asian universities have also responded to the demands of glo-
balization (Kao & Wang, 2013).
EAP, a professional field where students learn English to meet the demands of
their academic discipline (Liu, Chiu, Lin, & Barrett, 2014), falls under the scope
of ESP, a field that has generated much academic interest and shown tremendous
growth over the past 15 years (Huhta, 2010). This growth has had a strong impact
on English language learning as it has advanced students from general English to
discipline-specific language. This developmental, professional field not only
meets students’ academic interests and needs but also allows them to apply the
language they have been learning in authentic academic situations. In this way,
English language courses can be adapted to meet the specific needs of an aca-
demic discipline (Laborda, 2011; Liu, Chiu, et al., 2014; Soler, 2011).
Within EAP courses offered at universities, academic oral presentations in
various forms are used for ensuring assessment, presenting research, and social-
izing students into the discourse of an academic genre (Duff, 2010; Kim, 2006;
Morita, 2000; Zareva, 2009, 2011). Despite the prevalence of this type of aca-
demic, interactional activity, it has been reported that nonnative speakers often
enter university and even graduate courses with little or no familiarity with aca-
demic presentations, consequently finding them difficult to master. The demands

1228
 Trends for English Academic Oral Presentations
of a heavy course load often leave instructors with little time to teach oral presen-
tation skills alongside academic content (Bankowski, 2010; Kim, 2006; Zareva,
2009, 2011). Not only do students need to learn a new style of research in univer-
sity, they also have to become familiar with how to express themselves academi-
cally (Morton, 2009; Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas, 2005).
Current EAP research and teaching are undergoing a paradigm shift. The concept
of the native speaker as the perfect language model is no longer considered as nec-
essary for achieving a high level of communicative competence. Instead, current
trends place greater value on English as a lingua franca (ELF), the language spoken
by the academic community, where knowledge of an academic genre and associated
discourse is more important for communication than native speaker accuracy. In the
past, English language teaching aimed to help learners achieve native-like accuracy,
but now there is a demand for a more practical approach, where many ELF speakers
aim to achieve functional nativeness, an ability to communicate fluently in an inter-
national academic or work environment (Mauranen, Hynninen, & Ranta, 2010;
Nickerson, 2013). ELF research aims to provide practical solutions to requirements
to use English in academic settings. These changes will have interesting implica-
tions for teaching students EAP oral monologue skills, as effective communication
takes precedence over native-like accuracy. Language that native speakers perceive
as effective communication may not be as necessary for international communica-
tion, particularly in a conference setting outside an English-speaking country, where
native speakers are the minority (Feak, 2013).
Developments in LT and new pedagogical approaches across many educa-
tional fields including English-mediated instruction and ESP have brought LT
into many language classrooms (Bloch, 2013; Mayadas, Bourne, & Bacsich,
2009). Computer-assisted language learning (CALL), which has grown consider-
ably as an academic field, includes LT to assist traditional language learning, but
since the spread of Web 2.0 technology (e.g., Skype, social networks, blogs)
throughout the world over the past 14 years, there has been an increased focus on
the new ways people communicate, including the linguistic choices people make
(Bloch, 2013; Levy, 2009). For language instructors and learners, technology cre-
ates learning spaces where material, such as presentations, can be reviewed, prac-
ticed, and discussed with peers, instructors, or even a wider audience via online
networks (Redecker, Ala-Mutka, Bacigalupo, Ferrari, & Punie, 2009).
As noted above, instructors often have little free time to teach presentation
skills (Bankowski, 2010; Kim, 2006; Zareva, 2009, 2011), highlighting the need
for blended learning courses that combine face-to-face classroom interaction with
an online self-study component (Sharma & Barrett, 2007). The classroom compo-
nent allows instructors to concentrate on academic content or linguistic instruc-
tion while students can create work, develop skills, and master academic discourse
outside the classroom on the Internet (Brett, 2000). Furthermore, working with LT
outside the classroom helps learners develop both autonomy, long considered a
valuable skill for academic and workplace success (Black, 2006; Lam, 2004), and
multimedia skills involving texts, images, videos, and podcasts, which are now a
necessity for high-quality academic and workplace presentations (Bloch, 2013).
In terms of academic oral presentations, the use of multimedia has resulted in
a paradigm shift from written and spoken communication to a more semiotic style

1229
Barrett & Liu
that takes advantage of hyperlinked multimedia such as Internet-based pictures,
audio clips, videos, and graphics. This phenomenon can be seen across academic
presentations and journals, and reports from the workplace have shown this style
to now be the norm (Brett, 2000; Kress, 2010; Prior, 2005; Tardy, 2005; Webber,
2005). How EAP students combine English with a multimodal presentation,
which Nickerson (2013) described as hybrid genres, will be of great interest to
both CALL and EAP researchers and instructors in the future, illustrating what
Warschauer first pointed out in 1998:

I would suggest that 50 years after the computer was invented, we do not have
old language learning plus the computer, but we have different language
learning. To fully understand the interrelationship between technology and
language learning, researchers have to investigate the broader ecological context
that affects language learning and use in today’s society, both inside and outside
the classroom. (p. 760)

Although both EAP and CALL research are at the onset of paradigm shifts that
reconceptualize the way academic English is viewed, there have not been any
systematic reviews of EAP oral presentations, despite its growing prevalence in
academia internationally. Therefore, this dedicated review aims to identify,
explore, analyze, and synthesize the processes and products of this emerging field
in various global learning environments. It is hoped that future researchers will
capitalize on these findings to help prepare nonnative speakers successfully dis-
cuss their research through academic presentations.
The term oral monologues will be used in this article to refer to academic
presentations, dissertation, and thesis proposals, or any event where someone
has to speak for a given length of time on a topic without interruption. Although
there are obvious differences among presentation approaches in terms of audi-
ence and in subject matter (e.g., personal topics in video/audio blogs), these
types of speaking activities share more similarities—such as “a monologic
mode of oral delivery, narrative structure and informational character” (Zareva,
2009, p. 56)—than they do with face-to-face communication, which only allows
for limited preparation time (Sun, 2009). The terms general English language
learning and English learning refer to English language learning outside of
EAP or ESP courses.
EAP oral monologues and CALL papers with oral monologues can be seen as
emerging areas of research, which accounts for the relative scarcity of empirical
research papers since 2000 compared with papers investigating EAP writing
(DiCerbo, Anstrom, Baker, & Rivera, 2014; Leki, 2007) and writing with LT
(Loncar, Barrett, & Liu, 2014). The following section provides an overview of
academic presentations, the changing face of English language teaching, and the
use of LT in language teaching.
Academic Presentations as a Genre
Early work by Dubois (1985, 1987) identified differences between academic
written and spoken language and showed that spoken language tends to be more
casual than academic writing, with more talk directed at establishing common

1230
 Trends for English Academic Oral Presentations
ground with the audience. The academic presentation is an academic genre
(Swales, 2004) containing discourse structures, vocabulary choices, and delivery
styles that differ from academic lectures and written papers (Rowley-Jolivet &
Carter-Thomas, 2005; Zareva, 2009). Recent interest in academic presentations in
education has resulted in the development of design principles for instruction,
learning, and assessment (van Ginkel, Gulikers, Biemans, & Mulder, 2015).
Although these principles are of valuable help to instructors, EAP learners need
more specific, language-oriented guidelines.
For language learners, most of the recognized guidelines are prescriptive in
nature and tend to focus on the style of delivery rather than the linguistic features,
such as the grammatical, lexical, and discourse features used in first or second
language presentations (Zareva, 2009). These differences between the written and
spoken discourse have been found in native speaker scientists who package the
information differently and use different syntactic structures to meet the discourse
context and audience (Carter-Thomas & Rowley-Jolivet, 2001), but it has been
noted there was little research until the early 2000s into these linguistic features in
L2 and ELF presentations (Zareva, 2009, 2011).
Introductions to conference presentations have a clear discourse structure with a
setup, which establishes rapport with the audience; a contextualization frame, which
places the presentation within a research area; and a rationale for the research (Rowley-
Jolivet & Carter-Thomas, 2008). This building of rapport, including laughter, often
depends on shared specialized knowledge and personal relationships developed over
numerous conferences indicating the importance of audience awareness (Wulff,
Swales, & Keller, 2009). Rapport building was also achieved by linguistic means in
medical conferences (Webber, 2005), which included personal reference to show that
the speaker is personally involved in the content of the talk and the use of now to
indicate the speaker is moving to the next section of the talk in an informal manner.
Feak (2013) noted that the lines between written and conversation genres in
conference presentations have become blurred or blended with a mix of visual
slides, writing, speaking, and video. This blended or hybrid style has been noted
in popular science articles with images and text (Myers, 1990) and also in gradu-
ate students in research group and classroom settings (Tardy, 2009), indicating the
pervasiveness of multimodality in presentations.

The Language of Lectures

Several differences have been found in how lecturers adjust their lecture to an
international audience. Whereas some lecturers believed it necessary to limit
interpersonal features, nonnative speaker audiences believed that the use of per-
sonal pronouns and self-deprecation helped create a rapport with the audience (J.
J. Lee, 2009). Other adjustments such as slowing speech rate, fewer redundancies,
more audience interaction in the form of questions, and explanations of local cul-
tural references were all seen to assist a nonnative speaker audience understand a
lecture. Although it was found that there was no need to adjust a lecture in terms
of specialized content and vocabulary, audience awareness was seen as critical for
successful presentations, and the need to adjust presentations to meet different
audiences was thought to be of vital importance for lecture comprehension
(Crawford-Camiciottoli, 2005).

1231
Oral Monologues and Second Language Learners
General English language learning classroom-based studies have informed
researchers on how students use language for communication and how they per-
ceive the value (academically and personally) of communication in the classroom.
English language students from East Asia saw academic presentations to be the
most important part of classroom communication but had the most difficulty in
interacting in classroom situations (Kim, 2006). In terms of vocabulary, Lu (2012)
found that in student oral narratives, it was the range of vocabulary not the lexical
density or sophistication that promoted high-quality presentations, suggesting that
having a broad range of general English rather than specialized vocabulary may
contribute to the quality of a narrative. However, certain discourse features were
found to be difficult for Chinese students learning English to master, such as for-
mulaic sequences (e.g., “for example,” “on the contrary,” “to some degree”), which
add to the discourse organization and fluency of an oral narrative (Qi & Ding,
2011), suggesting that further research into the more sophisticated use of discourse
features in nonnative speaker presentations may reveal useful information.

ELF Studies
One of the biggest contributions to our understanding of nonnative speaker
spoken language has come from the emerging field of ELF. Research into phonol-
ogy (Jenkins, 2002) has shown the presence of core pronunciation features needed
for international comprehension. Seidlhofer (2004) identified grammatical fea-
tures common to academic ELF spoken contexts that differed in frequency from
native speaker norms, but they were not found to limit an international audiences’
comprehension. In terms of pragmatics, ELF speakers used cooperative strategies
and familiar topics and adopted a range of politeness strategies within a conversa-
tion (Meierkord, 2000). However, in small group interactions, ELF speakers were
noted to employ fewer pragmatic strategies than expected, resulting in a distanc-
ing effect (Björkman, 2011). Discourse features that allow speakers to organize
and strategize speech have also been found to be features of spoken ELF (Cogo,
2009; Wulff et al., 2009). These papers have enlightened the field on how ELF
speakers used common linguistic features despite their different first languages,
showing just how functional nativeness can be achieved. However, no papers,
except the ones in this literature review, have dealt exclusively with the linguistic
features of oral monologues from an ELF perspective. As oral monologues differ
from spoken interactions (Sun, 2009), certain features of ELF oral monologues
are expected to come to light in this article.
Oral Communication and LT
The rapid adoption of Web 2.0 tools such as blogs and online chat applications
has been shown to help English as a second language (ESL) communication
resulting in strong learning gains (Levy, 2009). These tools have also expanded
both distance and blended learning opportunities, as they allow students to prac-
tice skills and collaborate on tasks outside of the classroom creating a more flex-
ible learning environment (Liu, 2011). Whereas several studies have looked at
ESP/EAP teaching and LT (Liu, Chiu, et al., 2014; Spence & Liu, 2013; Tsai,

1232
 Trends for English Academic Oral Presentations
2009), more papers have looked at how LT can help develop speaking skills in
general English learning environments.
AbuSeileek (2007) found that students favored learning oral skills via coopera-
tive computer-mediated techniques over teacher-to-class computer learning. The
use of multimedia learning for medical students has been shown to increase inter-
cultural understanding and knowledge of the language needed for more successful
intercultural communication (Hamilton & Woodward-Kron, 2010). Online chat
via Skype has been found to help improve second language oral skills indirectly
because the cognitive learning mechanisms in online speech are similar to face-
to-face chat. Online should not be a substitute for face-to-face communication but
may assist students who are shy or lack opportunities to speak English face-to-
face (Payne & Ross, 2005; Payne & Whitney, 2002). Careful planning for online
videoconferencing tasks such as giving students adequate preparation, the free-
dom to negotiate the best times for the videoconferencing, and online support for
additional learning tasks was suggested as necessary (Hampel & Haucks, 2004).
Online oral chat also helped students develop pragmatic strategies such as using a
variety of speech acts and supporting language, which was observed in North
American students learning Spanish (Sykes, 2005).
Blogs, Audio/Video Blogs, and Portfolios
Since their introduction 15 or so years ago, the blog has attracted the attention
of language learners as a tool that functions to enhance language acquisition.
Students use blogs to publish their writings, discuss group assignments, review
peers’ posts, and collaborate on projects. Teachers can use blogs to assess stu-
dents, communicate with students outside the classroom, create learner autonomy,
and build a cooperative community (Churchill, 2009). Research into the use of
voice email by university students studying Spanish revealed that students showed
improvements in terms of fluency but neither grammatical accuracy nor articula-
tion improved significantly. It was implied that the participants paid more atten-
tion to the communication goals than accuracy, suggesting that teachers need to
address accuracy in classrooms face-to-face (Volle, 2005).
It is often noted that the main difference between video blogs or vlogs and an
oral presentation is the absence of a live audience. However, Frobenius (2011,
2014) argued that the vlogger is very much aware of the audience who will be
watching the vlog at a later date. They employ “multimodal elements that are
regularly part of spoken interaction, such as gaze shifts, shifts in posture, shifts in
facial expression, shifts in voice quality and pitch, and also pointing” (Frobenius,
2014, p. 1). Also, on sites such as YouTube, feedback comes in the form of delayed
comments. Although vlogs do not allow the same kind of interaction as a live
audience, they nonetheless contain traces of audience interaction that can help
prepare students for future presentations (Frobenius, 2014). Kay (2012) also noted
that student-created podcasts (audio recordings) show great promise for skill
development. The potential of podcasts as a learning tool for student-produced
work was also addressed by Abdous, Camerena, and Facer (2009). In education,
podcasts and video casts have primarily gained prominence as a delivery platform
for supplementary lectures and learning material, but Abdous et al. (2009)

1233
Barrett & Liu
highlighted additional academic advantages of podcasts (e.g., for critiquing stu-
dent projects and exams, which can be stored by learners for future reference).
A monologue or presentation can be seen as a learning project where students
create meaningful work using the affordances of technology, particularly Web 2.0
technologies such as blogs and video chats, which allow learners to communicate
in an authentic manner (Warschauer, Shetzer, & Meloni, 2000). A very popular
theoretical approach within the language technology field is Vygotsky’s (1978)
socioconstructive theory of language learning, where the computer or other elec-
tronic devices constitute the loci of social interactions where learning takes place
(Hung, 2011). This theory has become more dominant in the research with the
growth of Web 2.0 communication technology, such as social network sites
(McLoughlin & Lee, 2010) and audiovisual blogs (Hung, 2011).
For example, blogs provide a platform for peer feedback and social interac-
tions, where learners provide support for each other, scaffolding for language
learning needed by less proficient learners (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). Although
the reasons given above help explain why this research focus is popular, as teach-
ing oral monologues skill sets with LT becomes more widespread in English lan-
guage education, papers concerned with the final product will be needed. As such,
questions on the effectiveness of oral monologues constructed with the aid of
technology need to be addressed, and researchers should be concerned with lan-
guage differences between learners who predominantly use technology when
developing oral monologues and those who use methods that are more traditional.
It is already known that the language used for online communication differs in
many aspects from that used for face-to-face communication (Levy, 2009), so it is
not unrealistic to expect some linguistic and paralinguistic differences between
traditional and LT-assisted approaches to oral monologues. For example,
Frobenius (2011, 2014) observed differences in audience interaction compared
with face-to-face interaction in research into vlogs on YouTube.
What can be seen from the trends in EAP and CALL are global changes in how
English is being, or needs to be taught, which has created a gap in the research for
instructing students on how to approach oral presentations. EAP instruction has
entered a period of change, moving from striving for native-like accuracy to real
global communication needs, and the content has changed from native speaker as
the norm to functional nativeness. This changing context, alongside the increased
use of technology for communication, has created a shift in the ways students
learn, and what we hope are the beginnings of a shift in the ways students are
instructed. These new approaches to language learning and teaching need to be
explored to find practical, effective, and robust instructional patterns and method-
ologies. In this article, we will explore oral presentations within this new EAP
framework in addition to probing how LT can be used to assist students and
instructors.
Research Questions
The following research questions guide this study. First, what are the research
aims, outcomes, and instructional suggestions for research focusing on EAP oral
monologues from 2000 to 2014? Second, what are the instructional opportunities
and challenges for research into EAP oral monologues with and without LT from

1234
 Trends for English Academic Oral Presentations
2000 to 2014? Third, what types of LT tools have been implemented to assist EAP
and English language students with oral monologues? Fourth, what are the current
trends in educational contexts and academic disciplines for research focusing on
EAP oral monologues from 2000 to 2014?
Method
As the research on both ESP presentations and use of LT for academic oral
tasks employs quantitative and qualitative methodologies (Randolph, 2009), we
conducted a qualitative review. We adapted the methodology of Ogawa and Malen
(1991) and followed the guidelines set down by Randolph: (a) create an audit trail
of each step in the review, (b) define the focus of the review to explain what to
include and what to omit, (c) search for relevant literature, (d) classify the docu-
ments, (e) create summary databases, and (f) identify constructs and hypothesized
causal linkages (central themes and relationships among themes).
Search Strategies
As papers on oral monologues in EAP and CALL are relatively scarce, a broad
search was conducted. First, a keyword search in Web of Knowledge,
ScienceDirect, and JSTOR was carried out. Searches were also conducted in the
relevant online journals that are well regarded in the field of ESP/EAP, which
include the following: English for Specific Purposes, Asian ESP Journal, and
Journal of English for Academic Purposes. As this review is concerned with EAP
oral presentations and EAP/general English oral monologues that incorporate LT,
two separate keyword searches were carried out. The keywords for the oral pre-
sentation search included “ESP” (English for specific purposes), “EAP,” “ESL,”
“EFL” (English as a foreign language), “ELF,” “English as an international lan-
guage,” “academic presentation,” “oral presentation,” “oral monologue,” and
“oral narrative.” ESP is a subfield of English language teaching that covers
English used in the work place or specific vocations. English as a foreign lan-
guage is a subfield of English language teaching that covers English taught in
countries where English is not an official language. After this step, snowballing
sampling was carried out using the reference sections of the retrieved articles
(Randolph, 2009).
The date range for our search was 2000 to 2014. The year 2000 saw the start of
the rapid increase in the number students studying abroad (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012) followed by the growth of
English-mediated instruction in universities around the world where English is
not the main language for university instruction (Kao & Wang, 2013). The year
2000 also saw a rapid expansion in Internet usage around the world (Internet
World Stats, 2015), which gave students, teachers, and researchers greater access
to online resources and communication technology. As the researchers of this
study are interested in academic oral presentations for both EAP and LT, it was
logical to comprehensively research the field from this date.
This search procedure was repeated for research into LT with English aca-
demic oral monologues. The journals included Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, Computer Assisted Language Learning, Computers &
Education, English for Specific Purposes, Educational Technology Research &

1235
Barrett & Liu
Development, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, Language Learning
& Technology, System, ReCALL, and TESOL Quarterly. All of these journals have
been identified as the leading journals in this field (Liu, Chiu, et al., 2014). In this
search procedure, the keywords used were “CALL, “technology,” “ESL,” “ESP,”
“EAP,” “ELF,” “English as an international language,” and “presentation” OR
“oral” OR “academic presentation,” “oral monologue,” “oral narrative,” “vlog,”
“video blog,” “podcast,” “electronic speaking portfolio” NOT “digital storytell-
ing.” Although digital storytelling can inform researchers of multimedia skills
that can be adapted for presentations, it has a much broader focus as it tells a story
by incorporating computer-based graphics, recorded audio, computer-generated
text, video clips, and music (Robin, 2009). As the inquiry undertaken in this arti-
cle is limited to academic oral presentations, dedicated research regarding digital
storytelling was excluded from the corpus. The keyword search was followed by
additional snowballing sampling.
Eligibility Criteria
The researchers manually assessed the papers according to selection criteria
for inclusion/exclusion. Thus, (a) only papers where oral academic presentations/
monologues were the focus of the research were included; (b) only empirical
research was included; and (c) the presentation/monologue had to be in an aca-
demic setting and in an EAP or classroom-based English teaching setting. Review
articles, book reviews, and theoretical pieces were not included. Also, if a paper
looked at academic oral presentations as part of broader study, it was excluded,
and workplace research was excluded as we were interested in academic settings.
These exclusions were to ensure that the papers provided a detailed account of the
areas we are interested in exploring. After the excluded articles were removed, the
included corpus consisted of 28 papers, 14 EAP oral monologue research papers
that did not focus on LTs, and 14 academic oral monologue research papers that
addressed applicable LTs for analysis and discussion.
Data Coding and Analysis
After considering the research questions, four features were identified for cod-
ing EAP oral presentations: (a) investigative aims (to understand the purposes of
the studies under review), (b) outcomes of the studies (to provide insights into the
field and help identify areas and learning outcomes that require further study), (c)
instructional suggestions (to inform language instructors and course designers for
future course delivery), and (d) research demographics (to understand which
groups of learners and disciplines are over- or underrepresented in the literature
and what kinds of LT are being adopted). After the results were coded, the papers
were analyzed for research aims and themes. These were collated in a table format
for ease of access.
Results and Discussion
The corpus of 28 papers was analyzed to better understand the research aims,
outcomes, and instructional challenges for research focusing on EAP oral mono-
logues. Three themes were found to dominate the research:

1236
 Trends for English Academic Oral Presentations
1. The learning process and attitude toward the learning process: This is the
process that occurs when students prepare for and participate in oral
monologues. Student attitudes were determined by the results of inter-
views and questionnaires exploring learners’ perceptions, opinions, and
feelings toward constructing oral monologues with and without LT.
Subthemes include how focused training is needed to guide students
through the learning process and how unclear guidelines can adversely
affect students’ attitudes toward oral presentations.
2. The final product: The linguistic and paralinguistic features of EAP oral
monologues. Subthemes included differences in formality between native
speakers and nonnative speakers and the differences in information
content.
3. Pedagogical affordances of LT: This illustrates specific applications of LT
that can assist language learners preparing for oral monologues. Subthemes
include the role of multimodal resources for communication, how technol-
ogy helps develop learner autonomy and skills, and how LT is used for
peer or instructor feedback.

The main themes, findings, implications, and suggestions for instructors have
been synthesized in Tables 1 to 3. There are links between the themes in some of
the papers, but we believe the main themes represented the aims of the papers. For
example, process and attitude strongly influence each other as students’ attitudes
toward a pedagogical approach or technological tool determine the success of the
tool or approach in facilitating language learning. Similarly, although some of the
process papers did provide some details on the final product, the oral monologue,
or presentation, it was only a minor part of the overall aims of these papers.
Learning Process and Attitudes
Five of the EAP oral monologue papers in Table 1 (Bankowski, 2010; C. W. Y.
Chen, 2011; Chou, 2011; Morita, 2000; Yang, 2010) investigated the process of
planning, arranging, and discussing an oral presentation from the stance of lan-
guage socialization (Ochs, 1993; Willett, 1995). Language socialization is con-
cerned with the sociocultural contexts of L2 learning and is driven by the belief
that language learning is a social as well as a psychological process (Morita, 2000).
Interaction through oral activities and discussions leads to the acquisition of spe-
cific academic discourses and cultures (Morita, 2000), or to be more specific, the
acquisition of the knowledge, rules, and conventions for communication in an aca-
demic field. Much of the theoretical background on this topic draws on Vygotsky’s
(1978) sociocultural theory of language learning and Leont’ev’s (1978) activity
theory, which show how group social skills are learned through interacting via
language (Yang, 2010). The main findings include the problems students have with
academic socialization, the strategies learners developed to work on oral presenta-
tions, and how focused guidance resulted in strong learning gains.
Morita (2000) observed how both native speaker and nonnative speakers strug-
gled to form the academic skills needed to prepare and present an oral presenta-
tion, showing that instructors need to focus on the individual student in this type
(Text continues on p. 1251.)

1237
 Table 1

1238
Findings, implications, and suggestions for the learning process and attitude papers
Name of paper Findings Implications Suggestions for instruction

Morita Discourse socialization begins with negotiations Socialization is a difficult and Instructors should try not to make
(2000)Discourse with teachers and peers. complex process. assumptions about native speakers and
socialization nonnative speakers.
through oral Older students bring their own experiences and Dilemmas and conflict are an It is important to focus on students as
classroom knowledge into the socialization process. integral part of the learning individuals.
activities in a process.
TESL graduate It is an equally difficult learning experience for Discourse socialization is difficult
program native speakers as they struggle to establish an for all levels of students.
academic identity, and feel insecure about their
knowledge and skills.
Yang (2010). Students observe and participate in academic Students are apprenticed into Context-specific EAP courses and materials
Doing a group activities. academic discourse. should be used.
presentation: Learning strategies include careful preparation, Strategies compensate for language New material should be taught in the context
Negotiations judicious use of slide visuals, and good time limitations. of presentations or other oral activities to
and challenges management. promote oral performance.
experienced by There should be explicit instructions on how
five Chinese to cooperate and learn from group work.
ESL students
of commerce
at a Canadian
university
Bankowski (2010). Learners develop analytical and thinking skills Students have difficulty selecting Specific instruction is needed for topic
Developing skills from the training gradually over the course of appropriate topics. selection.
for effective a semester
academic Most successful oral presentations were Skills needed for a presentation Instructors need to work alongside learners
presentations in interesting and relevant to the learners’ lives. develop slowly. in developing topics.
EAP Learners had difficulty in narrowing the topic.
(continued)
 Table 1 (continued)

Name of paper Findings Implications Suggestions for instruction

Chou (2011). Metacognitive, retrieval, and rehearsal strategies Two presentation types serve Instructors need to be aware of how group
The influence are more frequent in individual presentations. different pedagogical purposes. and individual presentation training
of learner develop different skills.
strategies on oral Communication strategies are more frequent in Group presentations develop Training must be matched with learner and
presentations: group presentations. communication strategies, course needs.
A comparison audience interaction, and linguistic
between group skills encouraging a more
and individual relaxed communicative style of
performance presentation.
There is little difference in the use of Individual presentations develop
cognitive strategies between the two types of metacognitive skills and help
presentation. learners develop academic skills
Group presentations helped develop linguistic and synthesize information.
ability, professional knowledge, and
preparation skills.
Individual presentations helped link and organize
relevant information under a topic.
C. W. Y. Chen There are four emerging themes: Undergraduate oral training was not Self-evaluation training is needed.
(2011). meeting the needs of these EAP
Evaluating students.
one’s own
oral academic
presentation
a. Learner’s regard their role to be an Academic presentation involves Instructors need to be aware that students
information transmitter of the assigned more than passing on knowledge. lack basic skills for oral presentations.
reading.
b. Learners felt insecure and uncertain of their Self-evaluation fosters awareness.
roles in the academic community.

(continued)

1239
 Table 1 (continued)

1240
Name of paper Findings Implications Suggestions for instruction

c. There is a gap between the oral training they Students need confidence building to
had received in college and the requirements participate in oral presentations.
of graduate school presentations.
d. Students learn presentation skills from
senior classmates in seminars, instructors,
and visiting scholars.
Several students saw critiquing their own work
as irrelevant.
There were problems with academic thinking.
Some students lack the confidence to speak
English in presentations.
Radzuan and Kaur Students have self-perceived low English All these factors cause high levels of Courses should involve the industry panel
(2011). Technical language proficiency. anxiety for the students. (part of the evaluation committee) earlier
oral presentations in the development of the presentations
in English: because the students are unfamiliar with
Qualitative them.
analysis of Students have limited technical knowledge of the More supervision and assistance from
Malaysian subject and the audience. instructors are required.
engineering Students are unfamiliar with an interview panel More specific EAP courses are needed.
undergraduates’ from a local company.
sources of anxiety
Honga and The examiners place considerable emphasis on Examiners have high or unrealistic Clear guidelines are needed for the student to
Fong (2012). the quality of the language in the proposal expectations regarding language proof read or edit a proposal
Presenting rather than the content. ability.
a research Students lack good academic and research skills. Students lack suitable training Providing clear proposal requirements
proposal: The creating anxiety. reduces anxiety.
examiners’
expectations

(continued)
 Table 1 (continued)
Name of paper Findings Implications Suggestions for instruction

Examiners pay more attention to the written Students are unaware of the Students need monitoring and assistance to
proposal and do not focus on the presentation. requirements of the presentation. develop research skills.
Students lack awareness of what is needed for a Unawareness of requirements creates
research proposal. anxiety.
Stapa, Asniza Three main factors cause anxiety for oral All three factors cause emotional Training is needed in presentation skills and
Murad, and presentations: states such as stress and anxiety in specific EAP language skills.
Ahmad (2014). a. Inadequate knowledge of presentation skills the students. Student preferences need to be considered
Engineering b. Low confidence levels when developing teaching and learning
technical oral c. Self-perceived poor command of English, material.
presentation: including limited vocabulary and concern
Voices of the over incorrect pronunciation
stakeholder Students suggest they should read books
and articles, self-study, view multimedia
courseware, and watch video clips of
successful presentations to improve.
Hsu, Wang, and Students report higher levels of speaking Feedback allows students to reflect on Instructors should include specific language
Comac (2008). confidence. their performance and try to improve. instruction in the task.
Using audioblogs The teacher feedback provides valuable insights Specific language instruction must be Ways of providing feedback must be
to assist into speaking ability. incorporated into the learning task. developed.
English–language There is little language improvement in the short Learning with audio blogs is more
learning: An term. suitable for smaller classes as the
investigation It is difficult to provide feedback to more than 20 teacher needs to provide specific
into student students. feedback.
perception

(continued)

1241
1242
Table 1 (continued)

Name of paper Findings Implications Suggestions for instruction

Huang and Electronic speaking portfolios help students Students view audio blogging for Audio blogs should be used as a
Hung (2010). focus on individual weaknesses and problems. their e-portfolio favorably. supplementary tool for assessing oral
Implementing proficiency.
electronic They provide an environment for meaningful They feel less language-related They should be combined with more
speaking oral practice. anxiety so they are able to focus traditional oral assessment methods.
portfolios: more on the content.
Perceptions of Students are concerned that speaking portfolios They are concerned that audio blogs Students need to be aware of both the
EFL students do not allow for any face-to-face interaction. do not reflect their true oral skills. benefits and limitations of audio blogs.
Hung (2011). Students consider vlogs to be useful both for Students show a willingness to use Suitability of vlogs for oral presentation skills
Pedagogical learning and for displaying the final product. the vlogs and an improvement in needs to be clearly explained to the students
applications body language and delivery. and integrated into a course of study.
of vlogs: An Students benefit from the visual element of Students became aware of their own Students need to be aware it is not just a tool
investigation into vlogs. strengths and weaknesses. for practicing all oral skills.
ESP learners’ Vlogs allow for self-evaluation. Students are unaware of what aspects
perceptions Students have technical difficulties. of oral practice the vlogs could
Students show a reluctance to share content help them improve.
online.
Students want more face-to-face synchronous
interaction.

Note. EAP = TESL = Teaching English as a second language; English for academic purposes, ESL = English as a second language, EFL = English as a foreign language,
ESP = English for specific purposes.
 Table 2
Findings, implications, and suggestions the final product papers
Name of paper
Rowley-Jolivet and Carter-
Thomas (2005). Genre
awareness and rhetorical
appropriacy: Manipulation
of information structure by
NS and NNS scientists in
the international conference
setting
Zareva (2009). Informational
packaging, level of
formality, and the use of
circumstance adverbials in
L1 and L2 student academic
presentations
1243
Findings
Nonnative speaker scientists
differentiate less between written
and spoken genres.
Clauses in nonnative speaker texts and
presentations are longer (in number
of words).
Nonnative speaker use more passive
structures and extraposition.
Native speakers use more personal
pronouns and call the audiences’
attention to the visual parts.
Native speakers use more inversion
and pseudo-clefts
Frequencies of time and space
adverbials are higher for native
speakers.
Contingency and place adverbials are
higher for nonnative speaker.
Implications
The overuse of structures by nonnative
speaker makes the presentations more
difficult to understand and process, and
creates a sense of greater interpersonal
distance from the audience.
Personal pronouns create stronger rapport.
Inversion makes the discourse easier to
process for listeners.
Pseudo-clefts bring focus to the new
elements in a sentence, giving it more
impact.
Lower frequency of these features in
the nonnative speaker presentations
weakens clarity and rhetorical impact.
Native speakers’ presentations are more
conversational and informal.
Nonnative speaker presentations are more
descriptive.
Suggestions for instruction
Adopt a more pragmatic
approach to teaching
awareness on differences
between oral and written
modes of discourse.
Practice structures in more
authentic situations.
Instruct students in the
different functions of
English adverbials, such
as how they shape the oral
discourse.
Create more interaction
between speakers or a
speaker and audience.
(continued)
 Table 2 (continued)
1244
Name of paper
Zareva (2011). “And so that
was it”: Linking adverbials
in student academic
presentations
Fernández-Polo (2014). The
role of I mean in conference
presentations by ELF
speakers
Kao and Wang (2014).
Lexical and organizational
features in novice
and experienced ELF
presentations
Findings
Native speakers used more amplifying
and diminishing adverbials, such as
more and a little bit less.
Nonnative speakers used almost twice
as many linking adverbials, such as
result/inference adverbials (therefore,
thus, hence, etc.) and enumeration/
addition adverbials (first, lastly,
likewise, moreover, etc.)
Both groups frequently used so.
High frequency of the phrase I mean
in ELF presentations relating to
many discourse/pragmatic functions.
Novice group use more vocabulary
from the basic 2,000-word list.
Expert group use more words from the
Academic Word List.
15% of the words in the expert corpus
from the Academic Word List.
Novice group also use less lexical
cohesion.
Implications
Amplifying and diminishing adverbials
help lower the level of formality by
giving emphasis to the content and
connecting with the audience.
The style and frequency of adverbials by
the nonnative speakers are similar to
written academic reports.
Use of so is less formal than academic
papers thus adopting a more
conversational stance.
Nonnative speakers are perceived as more
formal due to the choice of adverbials.
I mean: signals intention, corrects
mistakes, emphasizes, creates rapport,
justifies, and gives force to an argument.
Academic presentations are not inundated
with a vast amount of specialist
language.
Novice speakers use grammatical
cohesion to structure their discourse.
Expert speakers use more lexical cohesion
to structure discourse.
Suggestions for instruction
Instructors and instructional
material to target the
differences between the
written and spoken use of
linking adverbials.
I mean needs to be taught
to EAP learners as a
presentation strategy.
Instructors need to
demonstrate the functions of
lexical cohesion in texts and
presentations.
Greater use of words from the
Academic Word List needs
to be taught.
(continued)
 Table 2 (continued)
Name of paper
Hincks (2010). Speaking rate
and information content in
English lingua franca oral
presentations
Hill and Storey (2003).
Speakeasy: Online support
for oral presentation skills
Tsai (2010). Developing and
integrating courseware for
oral presentations into ESP
learning contexts
Tsai (2011). Courseware
integration into task-–based
learning: A case study of
multimedia courseware-
supported oral presentations
for non-English major
students
Note. NS = native speakers, NNS = nonnative speakers, EAP = English for academic purposes, ELF = English as a lingua franca, ESP = English for specific purposes.
1245
Findings
English slows the presentation by 23%
compared with native language.
Content has to be eliminated to keep
within the time limits.
Feedback is positive from both
instructors and students.
Technical problems hamper self-
learning.
Over 85% of students show
improvement in posttest (written
test).
Students have a high level of
satisfaction with the courseware.
Students are concerned over how to
interact with courseware.
Students believe the courseware helps
with progress.
Biggest student concern was English
ability.
Implications Suggestions for instruction
More time is needed for ELF Slower rate of speech may
presentations. be beneficial for some ELF
audiences.
Presenters need to modify the content to Content modification needs to
meet time constraints. be taught.
Training with technology is needed. Provide classroom training
and feedback as part of a
blended learning course.
Specific training is needed before study Courseware must be suitable
commences. for self-study, freeing
up classroom time for
presentations and practice.
Train students how to use
courseware for self-study.
Lower proficiency students need more Provide more linguistic
linguistic support. support for students.
Courseware content needs to be modified Develop awareness of the
depending on the students’ level. problems students have with
courseware.
 Table 3
1246
Findings, implications, and suggestions for the pedagogical affordances of the LT
Name of paper
Rowley-Jolivet (2002).
Visual discourse in
scientific conferences. A
genre based study
Hafner (2013). Embedding
digital literacies in English
language teaching:
Students’ digital video
projects as multimodal
ensembles
Suggestions for
Findings Implications instruction
Photographs and images are used to Heavier text can be replaced by visual Instructors should
create rapport with the audience. diagrams—eases the cognitive load highlight the visual
for the audience and helps structure conventions specific
the discourse. to conference
Scriptual visuals help frame the The visuals show logical relationships presentations to
discourse and occur in a sequence to add cohesion, bring the presentation compensate for both
familiar to the audience. to an end, or indicate the start of a new the speakers and the
The different visual elements of the segment. audiences English
slides form a semiotic relationship ability.
between the visuals and spoken
content.
Group cooperation increases with There is greater learning control by Instructors need
projects. students. to provide clear
Students use linguistic devices, The students showed awareness of the guidelines and take
multimodal pictures, and audio as a audience. a more facilitative
“rhetorical hook.” role.
Different groups vary in register: Students create opportunities for
Some use formal scientific language learning and gain experience
language and some use a more with multimedia software that is seen
informal style. as meaningful to the students.
(continued)
 Table 3 (continued)
Name of paper
Hafner and Miller (2011).
Fostering learning
autonomy in English for
science. A collaborative
digital video project in
a technological learning
environment
Gromik (2012). Cell phone
video recording feature as
a language learning tool: A
case study
1247
Suggestions for
Findings Implications instruction
Learner autonomy is achieved Tasks helps foster group skills. Develop ways to
through peer cooperation. give and review
feedback.
Students are familiar with Familiarity with technology increases Train students to be
technology (YouTube). students’ willingness to use more critical.
technology.
Feedback enables students to notice Noticing their own weaknesses makes
their own weaknesses. students more critical.
Some students improved in overall Video recording supports cognitive Instructors can
word count. benefits of learning. observe micro
levels of speech
production.
Students believe that time and The time students spent recording More data can
practice help improve their ability. the video improves awareness and be collected for
conscientiousness of speaking observation.
competence.
Correlation between preparation The time students spend engaging Develop activities
strategies, speaking performance, the target language allows them to that combine
and opinion. negotiate meaning. project-based
The recordings can be used for student learning with cell
self-assessment. phone technology.
(continued)
1248
Table 3 (continued)
Suggestions for
Name of paper Findings Implications instruction
Sun (2009). Voice Blog: Some learning stages include Engagement with classmates and blogs Instructors need to set
An exploratory study of conceptualizing, brainstorming, leads to an increase in fluency. clear objectives and
language learning articulation, monitoring, and tasks to focus on
evaluating. meaning, form, or
both, depending on
the main purpose.
Students report a positive response Students feel comfortable in a Instructors need to
to the audio blogs and see them nonthreatening environment so they integrate audio
as a tool for improving speaking take more risks and place content over blogs into a
skills, practicing self-expression in form. course in order to
English, information exchange, and motivate students to
social networking with classmates. participate actively.
Students struggle with attention to
form, meaning, and fluency.
Students report a self-improvement
in fluency.
Shih (2010). Blended Students were satisfied and Video-based blogging motivates Class planning and
learning using video-based interested in video-based blogs. students to learn public speaking student group
blogs: Public speaking skills. planning essential.
for English as a second
language students
(continued)
 Table 3 (continued)

Suggestions for
Name of paper Findings Implications instruction
Helped 82% of participations Collaborative learning can facilitate Technical video
improve speaking skills: technical skills. issues such as file
enunciation, articulation, facial size, Internet speed,
expressions, posture, and gestures. and availability of
hardware important.
Computer skills improved through Students benefit from feedback and There is a need to
cooperative work. self-reflection via viewing video- balance face-to-face
based blogs. with online learning
in blended classes.
Reported awareness of weaknesses
through feedback and repeated
viewing of videos.
Technical issues caused students to
become frustrated.
Balakrishnan and Puteh Positive response to using blogs. Blended learning with new technology Video blogs must
(2014). Blending face- motivates students. be facilitated
to-face communication with face-to-face
and video blogging in learning.
acquiring public speaking
skills
Students preferred blended learning Video blogs can facilitate oral skills. Careful selection
over traditional and online learning. of video topics is
needed to clarify
understanding.
(continued)

1249
 Table 3 (continued)
1250
Name of paper
L. Lee (2014). Digital
news stories: Building
Language learners’ content
knowledge and speaking
skills
Note. LT = learning technology.
Findings
Students believed the blog helped
improve speaking ability.
Some students struggled with content
of authentic videos.
Students could study at own pace.
Technical issues caused frustration.
Student’s enjoyed making digital
news stories and sharing them.
Interviews revealed making digital
stories helped build content
knowledge, share perspectives, and
develop oral language proficiency.
Positive response to task-based
instruction.
Lack of deep reflection on some
topics.
Some students disliked online
feedback and sharing information.
Some students lacked computer
literacy skills for the tasks.
Suggestions for
Implications instruction
Some authentic videos are unsuitable Students need to be
for lower ability students. encouraged to share
topics.
Exposure to different accents facilitates
familiarity.
Increased student motivation and Instructor guidance is
engagement can be seen. needed to facilitate
discussions and
critical reflection.
A sense of community and interactive Instructors need
learning is created. to screen student
topics in advance
for suitability.
Experimental research is needed into Offer examples of
changes in student’s oral language digital news stories
proficiency. and training on how
Students did not challenge ideas, they to construct them.
simply exchanged news stories.
 Trends for English Academic Oral Presentations
of high-level, demanding task. The findings from this study were used to help
establish guidelines to help instructors teach the academic skills for oral presenta-
tions. Bankowski (2010) noted that students had difficulty selecting appropriate
topics, and similar problems with this form of focused, academic thinking were
observed by C. W. Y. Chen (2011), Honga and Fong (2012), Stapa et al. (2014),
and L. Lee (2014), highlighting the need for more training in tailoring suitable
discussion topics and developing analytical thinking. However, Chou (2011)
found that individual presentation work helped students link and organize infor-
mation for a topic, a skill that was lacking from group work. Yang (2010) noted
students lacked cooperation skills suggesting that focused instruction is needed,
as many students may not be familiar with group work. In contrast, some studies
have shown group work that incorporates LT facilitates the growth of cooperative
skills (Hafner, 2013; Hafner & Miller, 2011).
Despite the lack of focused guidelines, some students devised strategies to
overcome the challenges they faced in preparing for an oral monologue. For
example, students learnt by observing their peers’ presentations and noting their
instructor’s feedback, resulting in increased participation, and presentations
improved with careful preparation, judicious use of slide visuals, and good time
management (Yang, 2010). C. W. Y. Chen (2011) also noted that learners could
learn valuable presentation skills through observing peers, instructors, and visit-
ing scholars, although learners still felt insecure in their roles as novice
academics.
It was also found that self-evaluation of oral presentations, self-awareness–
building activities, and guided instruction helps learners develop a deeper under-
standing of the structure of an oral presentation (C. W. Y. Chen, 2011). Bankowski
(2010) developed a training program covering the research steps, the analytical
skills needed to understand and describe the academic data, and the skills required
for a clear and concise oral presentation because he believed students needed
explicit guidelines and training. In contrast, Chou (2011) found that students
developed their own learning strategies when asked to prepare an oral presenta-
tion, but the strategy types differed between group and individual work. For
example, in groups students developed more communication strategies, whereas
individual work resulted in more metacognitive, retrieval, and rehearsal strate-
gies. These findings strongly suggest that instructors need to be aware of the dif-
ferences between group and individual work when teaching students how to
prepare for oral presentations.

The Need for Specific Guidelines

Based on the findings, we discovered a link between guidelines and student
attitudes toward EAP oral presentation practice. In EAP academic oral mono-
logues, the attitudes, motivations, problems, and feelings students face when pro-
ducing and performing oral monologues often result from a lack of clarity or
misunderstandings of the guidelines for a presentation. Student anxiety is the
affective and emotional states students experience when asked to do a stressful
task, such as an academic presentation. Consequently, it is important for research-
ers to understand the students’ feelings and perceptions in order to develop guide-
lines for EAP tasks (Radzuan & Kaur, 2011). Students who are novice academic

1251
Barrett & Liu
presenters are often overwhelmed by a combination of having to acquire new
research and presentation skills alongside their anxiety over their English ability
(Stapa et al., 2014). Honga and Fong (2012) note, “Without having concrete
knowledge of the field, even the highly English proficient students may find the
academic task daunting and intimidating” (p. 538). For example, oral presenta-
tions are considered to be the most stressful communicative activity, especially
for Asian students (Woodrow, 2006). Many researchers believe that student anxi-
ety has a multifaceted nature so clear guidelines and training for the requirements
of a presentation could help ease this type of anxiety. For example, one group of
Malaysian students were unfamiliar with the requirements for an academic pre-
sentation, and they were also unaware of the type of questions a review panel
would ask, adding to their anxiety, which was already high as they were present-
ing in their second language (Radzuan & Kaur, 2011). A similar situation was
observed in dissertation proposals (Honga & Fong, 2012), and Stapa et al. (2014)
found a lack of knowledge of presentations skills and requirements during a pre-
sentation was a major causes of student anxiety.
Hsu et al. (2008), Sun (2009), and Huang and Hung (2010) found that when
introducing LT for language learning, specific guidelines on how the LT can assist
language learners are needed or the learners will question the use of the technol-
ogy and abandon the learning task before it is completed. For example, Hung
(2011) found that learners believed the main role of oral communication was face-
to-face interaction and found vlogs, which focused on oral monologue develop-
ment, to be unsuitable for developing face-to-face interaction skills. Guidelines
directing students on how vlogs can assist their language development would
have prevented this problem.
The Final Product
The unifying aspect of all these papers is that except for the LT courseware
papers, they are corpus-based research papers (Table 2). The range is from 2000
to 2014, and the main theme is how the language and discourse features of EAP
students in academic monologues differed from native speakers’ and expert
speakers’ presentations. It is important to note that three of these research papers
(Fernández-Polo, 2014; Hincks, 2010; Kao & Wang, 2014) were comparing lan-
guage learners not with native speakers but instead with other expert users, recog-
nizing that in academic circles, the language used is a highly specialized genre in
which knowledge of the genre, which includes the linguistic differences that sepa-
rates one genre from another, is more important for communication than native-
like language accuracy (Parkinson, 2013). This recognition of the need for
communication over linguistic accuracy reflects the movement in English for spe-
cific purposes research toward ELF, which “increasingly questions the needs for
English language learners to acquire native speaker-like target forms” (Feak,
2013, p. 40). Most of the academic presentations discussed are in environments
where ELF is used, which is with an international student body for an interna-
tional audience. Two subthemes were found in these research papers: differences
in formality between native speakers and nonnative speakers, and differences in
information content between these two types of speakers. The role of courseware
for the final product is also discussed.

1252
Formal Versus Informal Language
Several corpus-based studies have found that nonnative speakers have a more
formal style in presentations that shares many linguistic features with academic
writing (Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas, 2005; Zareva, 2009, 2011). For exam-
ple, Rowley-Jolivet and Carter-Thomas (2005) investigated the information struc-
ture of presentations of native and nonnative speakers at an international physics
conference by comparing the dialogue from the presenters with their correspond-
ing written articles for areas of overlap and areas of difference. Differences in
circumstance and linking adverbials (Table 1) were found between the two groups
(Zareva, 2009, 2011) with nonnative speakers showing a style with more similari-
ties to academic writing. Circumstance adverbials help describe a process or an
action, including time, place, manner, cause, and intensity. Examples include for
a whole week and if you remember from. Biber noted the higher frequency of time
and place adverbials by the native speaker is closer to conversational English
(Cited in Zareva, 2009, p. 56), creating a more interactive, informal style. Linking
adverbials are used to connect units of discourse, and overuse causes native speak-
ers to perceive a presentation as more formal (Zareva, 2011). Kao and Wang
(2014) also found novice nonnative speakers to use a higher frequency of adverbi-
als in comparison with expert nonnative speakers. Dubois (1985, 1987) and
Swales (2004) discovered that a more formal style is more common in academic
writing whereas presentations are characterized by a casual style. However, their
results are only based on native speaker norms so the perceptions of nonnative
speaker experts is needed to clarify if overformality is perceived as negative to an
international audience.
Discourse markers, such as I mean (Fernández-Polo, 2014), also affect the
perceived formality of a presentation by creating rapport with the audience and
giving force to an argument. Nonnative speaker conference presenters used a
higher frequency of discourse markers than native speakers, with both the positive
discourse functions (Table 1) and one negative. The use of I mean to correct mis-
takes and the use of similar phrasing may be mistaken as a flaw in the presenter’s
style by native speakers (Fernández-Polo, 2014). Qi and Ding (2011) also found
certain discourse markers to be problematic for English learners. These findings
suggests that there may be fruitful research opportunities into the use of discourse
markers by ELF speakers in conferences, especially in their roles as a discourse
strategy, which may differ from native speaker norms, yet be highly effective for
international communication.

Information Content
Kao and Wang (2014) found that expert speakers use more words from the
Academic Word List, which are used to establish lexical cohesion. In comparison,
a novice group had a higher frequency of basic English words with a higher
amount of adverbials, which established a less sophisticated content relying heav-
ily on grammatical cohesion instead of lexical cohesion. In general English, Lu
(2012) also noted that it was the range of vocabulary that added to the quality of
a presentation.
Hincks (2010) discovered English slowed a presentation down by 23% when
compared with the same presentation in a participants’ native language, forcing

1253
Barrett & Liu
the speaker to delete some of the content to keep within the time limits. However,
a slower rate of speech may be beneficial for ELF audiences, especially for begin-
ner EAP learners, as research has shown that native speakers tended to lecture at
too fast a rate for a nonnative speaker student audience (Crawford-Camiciottoli,
2005; Griffiths & Beretta, 1991). As a presentation takes more time in a nonnative
language, research and training on how to make the content more precise are
needed in this field.

LT Tools for Discourse Organization

Exploratory papers into the use of courseware for the discourse structure of
oral presentations show promising results, demonstrating the potential of course-
ware to assist students, at least in terms of discourse and organization (Table 1),
but none of them focus on specific differences between academic genres. It was
found that students were able to learn from the courseware in terms of the organi-
zation and discourse structure of a presentation (Hill & Storey, 2003; Tsai, 2011),
but neither of these studies carried out research to see if these learning gains can
be transferred to face-to-face presentations, leaving questions to be answered on
the long-term effectiveness of this type of courseware.
Pedagogical Affordances of LT
As research into LT tools is a relatively recent phenomenon in language learn-
ing, much of the research is exploratory in nature, so it is often more concerned
with reporting the pedagogical affordances and challenges of using a particular LT
tool for language teaching.
There are two major roles that technology plays in English for specific pur-
poses/EAP teaching: a tool for assisting students with language learning, and a
new form of communicative learning space for students to acquire and practice
English (Bloch, 2013). The relative scarcity of papers into this topic forced the
researchers to widen the scope of the search to include research papers focusing
on general English language learning, but the affordances of the technology is the
main focus of this section, and it is believed that these affordances can be trans-
ferred from a general English course to an EAP course once the content has been
modified. Three subthemes were found in the research into how LT can assist
language learning (Table 3).

The Role of Multimodal Resources

Rowley-Jolivet (2002) found conference visuals had a range of functions
(Table 3) that could be used for guidelines. English learners can exploit the semi-
otic resources of PowerPoint to increase the effectiveness of presentations. The
different visual elements of the slides form a semiotic relationship between the
visuals and spoken content, creating rapport and framing the discourse in a pattern
familiar to an audience (Rowley-Jolivet, 2002). The visuals and discourse also
help create a rhetorical hook, which is similar in function to a written hook and
helps draw in an audience to focus on the content (Hafner, 2013). Digital media,
drawing on semiotic resources such as audio, visual, and spatial have been shown
to play a major role in communicating ideas (Kress, 2010). As some EAP learners
often lack the verbal skills for conference presentations, multimedia resources are

1254
 Trends for English Academic Oral Presentations
valuable tools for communication, although, except for recent work by Morell
(2015), research on how language learners can exploit these resources is relatively
scarce and in need of development.

Learner Autonomy and Skill Development

Hafner and Miller (2011) showed how peer cooperation in digital video proj-
ects increased learner autonomy, or online social interaction, and thus students
successfully developed group learning skills. Balakrishnan and Puteh (2014),
Hafner (2013), and Gromik (2012) also reported that students found producing
videos to be a more meaningful task than classroom learning as students took
control of the production and felt responsible for the content. Blogs are regarded
as areas of social interaction and sites for mediated learning, which has drawn the
attention of researchers with a socioconstructivist view of language learning
(Hung, 2011). For example, Sun (2009) found that students passed through a
series of skill building stages when preparing an oral monologue for an audio
blog, and Huang and Hung (2010) found that preparing audio blogs for their elec-
tronic speaking portfolios gave students the time to focus on individual weak-
nesses and problems, which resulted in superior content. For example, students
build content knowledge, learn how to share perspectives (L. Lee, 2014), and
improve computer skills through cooperation (Shih, 2010). This type of coopera-
tive learning has also been found to occur in written blogs (Bonk & Cunningham,
1998; W. C. Chen, Shih, & Liu, 2015; Churchill, 2009).
In terms of language learning, student self-reported improvements in fluency
and confidence as a result of learning with audio/video blogs have been reported
(Balakrishnan & Puteh, 2014; Hsu et al., 2008; L. Lee, 2014; Sun, 2009), which
Sun (2009) attributed to lower anxiety as a result of the asynchronous nature of
the language learning task. However, for linguistic accuracy, both Hsu et al.
(2008) and Sun (2009) found little improvement through the use of video blogs,
suggesting that focused grammatical or discourse training is needed. Volle (2005)
also observed this problem in writing blogs, attributing it to students focusing
more on communication goals (e.g., to communicate the content of the blog)
rather than language accuracy. The focus on communication over accuracy can be
viewed as either positive or negative by an instructor depending on if the goal of
the language learning task is fluency or practicing linguistic structures.

Instructor and Student Feedback

Web 2.0 tools can facilitate communication between a language learner and
instructor outside the language classroom as instructors and peers can provide
delayed feedback on an oral monologue. From this feedback, learners notice their
own weaknesses and become more self-critical, as asynchronous feedback gives
more time to reflect on performance and can lead to an improved oral monologue.
This pattern of feedback–reflection–improvement for audio blogs was also noted
by Hsu et al. (2008), Shih (2010), Hung (2011), and Hafner and Miller (2011) in
video blogs. However, both Hung (2011) and L. Lee (2014) observed that stu-
dents were initially reluctant to share videos online as they felt threatened by the
feedback, a common concern for language students when they first encounter peer
feedback.

1255
Figure 1. Frequency of learning technologies and tools used in the research papers.

Types of LT Tools
LT is a specialized academic area in which technology is developed and used
by students, teachers, and instructional designers to facilitate learning in various
contexts (Liu, 2008, 2011; Liu, Liu, & Hwang, 2011). Figure 1 shows the 14
papers that used LT. Audio blogs/audiovisual blogs (five papers) and researcher-
created courseware (three papers) were the most common type of technology.
Other technologies included electronic speaking portfolios, cell phones, YouTube,
multimedia digital story software, a mix of YouTube and blog, and PowerPoint
with multimedia, each with one paper, respectively.
Eleven of these papers were published in the past 5 years, indicating that this
is an emerging area of study. Of these research papers, nine studies used Web 2.0
technology (audio and video blogs, YouTube) as the main learning tool reflecting
the general learning paradigm in CALL, which has moved from websites toward
interactional tools that shift the locus of control toward the student in order to
promote a more autonomous or student-centered learning style (Hafner & Miller,
2011; Liu, 2008; Liu & Chen, 2007; Liu et al., 2011). The other research papers
used specialist learning courseware developed by the researcher, and one research
paper investigated the implementation of electronic speaking portfolios into a
course. There are no papers that investigated social network sites or personal
learning environments for developing oral monologues. The lack of research in
this area is surprising, as it has become a popular area of research for English
learning with technology over the past 5 years as more users are replacing email
and blog with social network sites (Bloch, 2013). Both social network sites and
personal learning environments allow instructors and users to combine Web 2.0
communication tools with specific learning material (Lockyer & Patterson, 2008;

1256
Figure 2. Frequency of educational contexts in the research papers in terms of
subjects.

McLoughlin & Lee, 2007) that combines the benefits of both types of learning
tools in one package and often eliminates the need to develop time-consuming
and costly courseware. Many new technologies pass through The Hype Cycle
(Fenn, 1999), where the technology is met with often inflated expectations fol-
lowed by disillusionment and criticisms before researchers begin to objectively
explore how the technology works for language learning. It seems that technolo-
gies such as Google+ and Facebook are going through this cycle (Bloch, 2013),
suggesting that further critical research into these LT with oral monologues may
appear in the future.
Educational Contexts
Figure 2 indicates the educational contexts of the studies and shows the most
common context for oral monologues to be undergraduate courses (14 papers),
followed by mixed graduate and undergraduate (6 papers), graduate (4 papers),
mixed undergraduate and senior, which includes lecturers and conference present-
ers (3 papers), and senior researchers (1 paper). It must be noted that all the
research in this corpus of papers published between 2000 and 2014 took place in
higher education institutions, which is not surprising because most researchers are
based in these institutions, thus allowing access to students, technology, and fund-
ing resources. The majority of studies focused on higher education groups that
need to learn oral monologue skills in order to pass a course or establish them-
selves as junior members of an academic community. EAP students have a practi-
cal need for specialist English courses related to their major, and presentations,
both in the classroom and in conferences, are often a requirement of the courses

1257
Figure 3. Frequency of academic disciplines in the research papers.

the students are taking (Bankowski, 2010; Fernández-Polo, 2014; Morita, 2000;
Zareva, 2009, 2011). Nevertheless, there is room for research into oral mono-
logues differences between novice learners and ELF expert speakers. Indeed, for
many students who will be required to present oral monologues in English in
higher education, learning from nonnative speaker experts can help them gain
certain cross-cultural language strategies that may be absent from native speaker
presentations.
Academic Disciplines
For academic disciplines (Figure 3), the papers with students in humanities,
social, and behavioral sciences were grouped as liberal arts. Science and engi-
neering included all science and engineering fields, and language included lan-
guage learning, second language education, and linguistics. The mixed group
included speakers from a variety of different academic subjects. The highest num-
ber of studies were in science and engineering fields (11 papers), followed by
language (6 papers), liberal arts (3 papers), business (4 papers), and mixed (4
papers).
Academic fields such as the social sciences and especially business are under-
represented, but learners in these disciplines also require strong speaking skills for
oral monologues as strong oral communication skills are essential for these fields.
Just as the written genre in science differs from liberal arts and business for gram-
mar, lexical features, and discourse (Parkinson, 2013), it is likely that the spoken
genre will also show differences, as is the case in research into conference presen-
tations by biology students (Dubois, 1987). Further research and comparisons
between the fields could provide fruitful data for researchers and instructors,

1258
 Trends for English Academic Oral Presentations
highlighting the need for more discipline-orientated research into oral mono-
logues in other EAP fields, especially in the business and financial disciplines.

Suggestions for Future Research Directions

From these research papers to EAP and general English learning that addresses
oral monologue skills several important concepts that need to be considered in
future research have emerged. They will be discussed in terms of the following
themes.

Linguistic and Discourse Differences

First, there needs to be a move toward the teaching of more pragmatic and
discourse skills for academic oral presentations. New instructional approaches
need to emphasize the differences between the written and spoken genres, as
research has clearly demonstrated how novice nonnative speaker presenters often
adopt a written style for oral presentations. These instructional approaches, build-
ing on the findings of the papers in this review, then need to be tested and evalu-
ated in the classroom. Feak (2013) found the following problem in research into
English for specific purposes: “While many studies indicate that research has
been undertaken to inform teaching, the materials developed are rather occluded,
shared to a much lesser extent than the actual research” (p. 49). Second, there is a
need for state-of-the-art courseware or instructional design that can incorporate
newly designed EAP material for oral presentations with the latest CALL
approaches to language learning with Web 2.0 tools and social media. As CALL
is a developing field, with new LT tools and updated technologies, studies and
teaching approaches need to be evaluated with the emerging technology.
Specifically, there is a need for longitudinal studies for courseware (Tsai, 2011),
which is necessary before teachers introduce courseware to instruction, and a
need for instructional designers to improve it.

The Role of Multimodal Resources

There is a need for more research into the semiotic multimedia resources used
in academic oral presentations and monologues, particularly research into the lin-
guistic devices speakers use to communicate alongside multimedia presentations
and how instructors can design courses to work with this shift in presentation
style. Questions regarding which theories can be used to develop instructional
approaches and evaluate these kinds of presentations need to be answered in order
to meet learners’ needs, although multimodal research into digital story telling
may offer valuable insights.

Pedagogical Affordances of the LT

There is a need for studies into the effectiveness of dedicated oral monologue
LT in terms of the final product, for example, research into how the skills learnt
and practiced with LT are transferred to actual oral academic presentations and the
challenges students face. Communication and group work to assist learners with
both academic discourse socialization and the final product would be needed
using either courseware designed to meet these specific needs or an online

1259
Barrett & Liu
learning space with links to authentic material, language assistance, and opportu-
nities for peer and instructor feedback.
The research papers with LT used either courseware or Web 2.0 tools such as
audio/video blogs. Although they demonstrated the affordances of these technolo-
gies for oral tasks, research into LT that blends the advantages of both courseware
and Web 2.0 tools such as social network sites or personal learning environments
is lacking at this present time. However, new uses of LT tools need to be devel-
oped with a strong theoretical background and follow practical design guidelines.
It is suggested that future research follows the guidelines set down by Bax (2011).
He suggests that the field adopts a neo-Vygotskian perspective to help instructors
and language learners adopt new LT that would place the technology within a
solid theoretical framework. Within this framework, instructors and learners
could formulate a learning plan guided by elements of neo-Vygotskian theory,
including access to knowledge, participation, and interaction with mediation in
the form of expert scaffolding and modeling.
Pedagogical Suggestions for EAP Oral Monologues
From these research papers into EAP/oral monologue general English learn-
ing, several important pedagogical suggestions have emerged that are of value for
instructors when designing or teaching a course for oral presentations.

Linguistic and Discourse Differences Among Learners, Experts, and Native

Speakers (Table 1)
First, there is a need for authentic learning material that allows students to
observe the language forms used in presentations and how they differ from writ-
ten academic language (Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas, 2005; Zareva, 2009,
2011). Judicious selection of online video clips would provide enough authentic
material, but this may be time-consuming for instructors. Students could also be
made aware of how expert presenters make use of slides and other multimedia
resources. Kay (2012) provided a comprehensive overview of the literature on the
use of video podcasts in education, which would be good starting point for future
learning material. Instructors also need to build awareness of how the use of
adverbials and lexical cohesion shapes oral discourses and increases the fluency
and quality of an oral presentation, particularly in terms of their discourse and
pragmatic function (Kao & Wang, 2014; Zareva, 2009, 2011). Interestingly, Chou
(2011) found group presentations help students naturally develop communication
strategies, audience interaction, and linguistic skills, encouraging a more relaxed
communicative style of presentation, which according to Zareva (2009) is an indi-
cation of a high-quality presentation.

The Need for Specific Guidelines and Focused Training (Table 2)

Students need clear guidelines regarding instructors’ and institutions’ expec-
tations for academic oral presentations, or this will lead to increased anxiety in
the presentation. Instructors need to make students aware of institutional expec-
tations and ensure that courses are designed to enable students to meet these
expectations. Instructors also need to understand the sources of student anxiety,
as although it is multifaceted, precise instructions may reduce some anxiety

1260
 Trends for English Academic Oral Presentations
resulting in higher quality oral presentations (Radzuan & Kaur, 2011; Stapa
et al., 2014).
Also, careful training is needed for language learners to develop skills to pre-
pare academic presentations and to maximize the affordances of LT tools. Explicit
instructions on how to cooperate and learn from group work would be beneficial
to academic discourse socialization, although research into the most effective
ways to present the instructions is needed (Yang, 2010). Sun (2009) noted that
instructors who wished to use audio blogs for language teaching need to set clear
objectives and tasks to focus on meaning, grammatical form, or both, depending
on the main purpose of using audio blogs. Instructors also need to carefully inte-
grate the blog into the course objectives to avoid creating additional work for
students and to encourage participation. Tasks need to be clearly explained to the
students and integrated into a course of study, as LT cannot just be used as a tool
for practicing general oral skills (Hung, 2011). In the absence of a comprehensive
explanation of why a specific LT is being used, learners may feel that the LT does
not meet their language needs, forcing them to limit its use or abandon it all
together.

The Role of Multimodal Resources (Table 3)

There is also a need for further research into how presenters use multimedia in
oral presentations to develop guidelines for instructors in order to enable EAP
students to communicate confidently in modern-day presentations. For this, it is
suggested that instructors gain insights from digital storytelling with ESL learners
(Kajder & Swenson, 2004; Ohler, 2006) and adapt them to meet the goals of stu-
dent oral presentations.

Pedagogical Affordances of the LT (Table 3)

Several instructional suggestions have emerged from this research review into
oral monologues with LT, such as the need for training for both teachers and stu-
dents to prevent technical problems from interfering with the learning process
(Hill & Storey, 2003; Hung, 2011). Instructors and course designers need to inte-
grate ways of providing effective teacher and peer feedback into audio and video
blogs, which will encourage students to become more critical (Hafner & Miller,
2011; Hsu et al., 2008). LT tools, in particular audio and video blogs, for language
learning have been criticized for lacking a language focus (Gromik, 2012; Sun,
2009). For example, they could be used as a tool for language fluency, a way of
teaching and assisting students with language form or both. Instructors need to be
aware that this depends on the needs of their students and plan courses accord-
ingly. LT tools also need to be carefully integrated into a course by working along-
side the aims and objectives of a language course. If using the LT meets these
aims, then learners will have more motivation to incorporate the tools into their
course participation (Sun, 2009). Instructors also need to recognize the strengths
and weaknesses of the new approaches for assessment in order to integrate them
with more traditional assessment methods (Huang & Hung, 2010). Finally, as
using LT for oral monologue practice and development is a relatively new
approach, action research studies are needed to provide further guidelines for
instructors and students to highlight problems and areas in need of further research.

1261
 Conclusion
This article contextualized the literature focusing on academic oral mono-
logues in EAP and academic oral monologues with LT in EAP/general English
learning environments in the years 2000 to 2014. We conducted a qualitative
literature review, based on Ogawa and Malen’s method (Randolph, 2009), of
EAP academic oral monologues and EAP/general English learning oral mono-
logues with LT using a keyword search. After collecting and analyzing the
results of the search, the corpus was refined using a set of inclusion and exclu-
sion factors resulting in a refined corpus of 28 research papers. These papers
were analyzed quantitatively to identify specific trends in research aims, aca-
demic and educational contexts, and technology. Then, a qualitative analysis
was used to identify the essential themes in order to increase the understanding
of this research area.
This dedicated review article provides the first snapshot of the state of the
literature in this field over the past 14 years, and documents the emerging
themes and future challenges for interested researchers and instructors. First,
the analysis of the research aims revealed three main areas attracting research
interest: the learning process with student attitudes toward presentations with
and without LT, the features of the final product (i.e., the oral presentation), and
the pedagogical affordances of the LT for academic oral monologue develop-
ment. Process papers dominated the research literature, but a closer analysis
revealed that the product papers mainly investigated EAP oral monologue
teaching without LT technology.
Surprisingly, there were no studies applying the results of the product papers to
instructional practices despite the strong need for this style of instruction in the
EAP classroom. The lack of instructional approaches echoes Feak’s (2013) obser-
vation that more instructional material based on research findings in EAP is
needed alongside accounts of the learning process. In contrast, the majority of the
research into oral monologues with LT concerned the learning process, suggesting
that there is a need for researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of the LT tools in
terms of assisting students to produce a high-quality final product such as an oral
presentation. Most of the research is currently being conducted in the science and
engineering disciplines, showing that research into other disciplines is needed to
inform instructors of the expected discipline-specific language and discourse dif-
ferences that have already been observed in writing (Swales, 2004).
The research papers with LT used either courseware or Web 2.0 tools such as
audio/video blogs, demonstrating the affordances of these technologies for oral
tasks but revealing that research into LT that blends the advantages of both course-
ware and Web 2.0 tools such as social network sites or personal learning environ-
ments is lacking at this present time.
The qualitative analysis illustrates that several research themes dominate the
literature including, for oral monologues without technology, specific linguistic
features for the academic presentation genre, which increase the rhetorical force
and clarity of a presentation. There is no evidence to date in the literature of the
development of instructional material or research accounts of teaching these fea-
tures to students. In EAP, it is the responsibility of instructors to teach students

1262
 Trends for English Academic Oral Presentations
how to successfully accomplish an academic task, but at this present stage,
instructors lack the teaching resources to teach truly effective oral presentations.
At the beginning of this article, we discussed the changing context in EAP from
native speaker as the norm to functional nativeness where the English language is
being used to spread academic knowledge. Language functions as a tool to pro-
mote thinking and promote knowledge according to Vygotsky (1978); therefore
the most effective ways to communicate ideas must be uncovered and taught to
learners so that they can eventually develop the skills to share these ideas and
knowledge with an international audience of experts in conference settings.
Only two of these papers investigated multimodality or multimedia in presen-
tations, despite its prevalence in both academic conferences and the work place.
Prior (2013) noted that the current trends in English for specific purposes litera-
ture still tend to explore traditional language theories, creating many research
opportunities for language researchers and instructional designers willing to break
away from this focus.
In terms of technology, many tools have been adopted to successfully assist
students in the development of oral monologues, yet there is little evidence of
research into the effectiveness of these tools on the final product, the oral pre-
sentation. It is the instructor’s responsibility to learn how to use and teach stu-
dents how to use the tools and courseware for oral monologues, including
instructing them on their affordances and limitations. For this to be effective,
CALL teacher education is needed to assist teachers integrate LT into the EAP
classroom (Hong, 2010; Liu, 2011). Perhaps the biggest challenge for research-
ers and designers is the development of courseware or virtual learning environ-
ments (Liu et al., 2011; Liu, Lu, & Lai, 2014), which can not only instruct
students in the linguistic and nonlinguistic features of oral monologues but also
provide a space for collaboration, feedback, or assessment. A blended language
learning approach with cooperative learning would be suitable as time-strapped
instructors are often unable to teach valuable presentation skills in the class-
room. However, care must be taken when integrating cooperative learning, as it
requires careful implementation to create a positive effect (De Boer, Donker, &
van der Werf, 2014). For this to work, it is suggested that researchers adopt the
guidelines put forward by Bax (2011), which places strong guidelines within a
neo-Vygotskian theoretical framework. The technology is already in place, but
studies backed by solid theories and strong guidelines are necessary for both
researchers and students to reap the rewards that LT promises. To facilitate this
goal, we hope our article will shed light on this emerging academic field and
that the findings will encourage more practitioners to contribute to the develop-
ment of a solid knowledge base by putting the pedagogical suggestions into
practice.

Note
This work was supported by the Ministry of Science & Technology in Taiwan (NSC
100-2511-S-006-003-MY2 and NSC 102-2511-S-006-005-MY3). This research was also
supported in part by the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, Republic of China, and the Aim for
the Top University Project at the National Cheng Kung University.

1263
 References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
Abdous, M., Camerena, M. M., & Facer, B. R. (2009). MALL technology: Use of
academic podcasting in the foreign language classroom. ReCALL, 21, 76–95.
doi:10.1017/S0958344009000020
AbuSeileek, A. F. (2007). Cooperative vs. individual learning of oral skills in a CALL
environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 493–514.
doi:10.1080/09588220701746054
*Balakrishnan, V., & Puteh, F. (2014). Blending face-to-face communication and video
blogging in acquiring public speaking skills. Journal of Creative Practices in
Language Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 64–72. Retrieved from http://www.aca-
demia.edu/9261980/Blending_Face_to_Face_Communication_with_Video_
Blogging_in_Acquiring_Public_Speaking_Skills
*Bankowski, E. (2010). Developing skills for effective academic presentations in EAP.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22, 187–196.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ930152.pdf
Bax, S. (2011). Normalization revisited: The effective use of technology in language
education. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and
Teaching, 1(2), 1–15. Retrieved from http://www.irma-international.org/viewti-
tle/53797/
Björkman, B. (2010). So you think you can ELF: English as a lingua franca as the
medium of instruction. Hermes, 45, 77–99. Retrieved from http://download2.
hermes.asb.dk/archive/download/Hermes-45-bj%C3%B6rkman.pdf
Björkman, B. (2011). Pragmatic strategies in English as a lingua franca: Ways of
achieving communicative effectiveness. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 950–964.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.033
Black, R. W. (2006). Language, culture, and identity in online fanfiction. E-Learning
and Digital Media, 3, 170–184. doi:10.2304/elea.2006.3.2.170
Bloch, J. (2013). Technology and English for specific purposes. In B. Paltridge & S.
Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 385–401).
Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bonk, C., & Cunningham, D. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist,
and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C.
Bonk & K. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators (pp. 25–50). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brett, P. (2000). Integrating multimedia into the business English curriculum: A case study.
English for Specific Purposes, 19, 269–290. doi:10.1016/S0889–4906(98)00018–0
Canagarajah, S. A. (2006). TESOL at forty: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly, 40,
9–34. doi:10.2307/40264509
Carter-Thomas, S., & Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2001). Syntactic differences in oral and writ-
ten scientific discourse: The role of information structure. Asp: La Revue du GERAS,
31/33, 19–37. Retrieved from http://asp.revues.org/1752
*Chen, C. W. Y. (2011). Evaluating one’s own oral academic presentation. The Asian
ESP Journal, 7(3), 5–28. Retrieved from http://www.spokenskills.com/index.cfm?
type=11&TSCategoryID=4&TSTopicID=640
Chen, W. C., Shih, Y. C. D., & Liu, G. Z. (2015). Task design and its induced learning
effects in a cross-institutional blog-mediated telecollaboration. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 28, 285–305. doi:10.1080/09588221.2013.818557

1264
 Trends for English Academic Oral Presentations
*Chou, M. (2011). The influence of learner strategies on oral presentations: A com-
parison between group and individual performance. English for Specific Purposes,
30, 272–285. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2011.04.003
Churchill, D. (2009). Educational applications of web 2.0: Using blogs to support
teaching and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 179–183.
doi:10.1111/j.1467–8535.2008.00865.x
Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of prag-
matic strategies. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca:
Studies and findings (pp. 254–273). Newcastle, England: Cambridge Scholars.
Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education.
Language Teaching, 39, 1–14. doi:10.1017/S026144480600320X
Crawford-Camiciottoli, B. (2005). Adjusting a business lecture for an international
audience: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 183–199. doi:10.1016/j.
esp.2004.05.002
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
De Boer, D. H., Donker, A. S., & van der Werf, M. P. C. (2014). Effects of the attributes
of educational interventions on students’ academic performance: A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 84, 1–37. doi:10.3102/0034654314540006
DiCerbo, P. A., Anstrom, K. A., Baker, L. L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A review of the lit-
erature on teaching academic English to English language learners. Review of
Educational Research, 84, 446–482. doi:10.3102/0034654314532695
Dubois, B. L. (1985). Popularization at the highest level: Poster sessions at biomedical
meetings. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 56, 67–84.
doi:10.1515/ijsl.1985.56.67
Dubois, B. L. (1987). Something on the order of around forty to forty-four: Imprecise
numerical expressions in biomedical slide talks. Language in Society, 16, 527–541.
doi:10.1017/S0047404500000361
Duff, P. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169–192. doi:10.1017/S0267190510000048
Feak, C. B. (2013). ESP and speaking. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The hand-
book of English for specific purposes (pp. 35–53). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Fenn, J. (1999). When to leap on the hype cycle. Gartner Group. Retrieved from http://
www.cata.ca/files/PDF/Resource_Centres/hightech/reports/indepstudies/
Whentoleaponthehypecycle.pdf
*Fernández-Polo, F. J. (2014). The role of I mean in conference presentations by ELF
speakers. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 58–67. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2013.09.006
Frobenius, M. (2011). Beginning a monologue: The opening sequence of video blogs.
Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 814–827. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.018
Frobenius, M. (2014). Audience design in monologues: How vloggers involve their
viewers. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 59–72. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.008
Griffiths, R., & Beretta, A. (1991). A controlled study of temporal variables in NS-NNS
lectures. RELC Journal, 22, 1–19. doi:10.1177/003368829102200101
*Gromik, N. A. (2012). Cell phone video recording feature as a language learning tool:
A case study. Computers & Education, 58, 223–230. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2011.06.013
*Hafner, C. A. (2013). Embedding digital literacies in English language teaching:
Students’ digital video projects as multimodal ensembles. TESOL Quarterly, 48,
655–685. doi:10.1002/tesq.138

1265
Barrett & Liu
*Hafner, C. A., & Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learning autonomy in English for sci-
ence. A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment.
Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 68–86. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.
org/p/52231/
Hamilton, J., & Woodward-Kron, R. (2010). Developing cultural awareness and inter-
cultural communication through multimedia: A case study from medicine and the
health sciences. System, 38, 560–568. doi:10.1016/j.system.2010.09.015
Hampel, R., & Haucks, M. (2004). Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in
distance language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 66–82. Retrieved
from http://www.llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/hampel/default.html
*Hill, M., & Storey, A. (2003). Speakeasy: Online support for oral presentation skills.
ELT Journal, 57, 370–376. doi:10.1093/elt/57.4.370
*Hincks, R. (2010). Speaking rate and information content in English lingua franca
oral presentations. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 4–18. doi:10.1016/j.
esp.2009.05.004
Hong, K. H. (2010). CALL teacher education as an impetus for L2 teachers in integrat-
ing technology. ReCALL, 22, 53–69. doi:10.1017/S095834400999019X
*Honga, L. C., & Fong, N. S. (2012). Presenting a research proposal: The examiners’
expectations. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 537–543. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2012.11.298
*Hsu, H. Y., Wang, S. K., & Comac, L. (2008). Using audioblogs to assist English
language learning: An investigation into student perception. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 21, 181–198. doi:10.1080/09588220801943775
*Huang, H. T. D., & Hung, S. T. A. (2010). Implementing electronic speaking portfo-
lios: Perceptions of EFL Students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41,
84–88. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8535.2009.00996.x
Huhta, M. (2010). Language and communication for professional purposes: Needs
analysis methods in industry and business and their yield to stakeholders
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki,
Finland. Retrieved from http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2010/isbn9789522482273/
isbn9789522482273.pdf
*Hung, S. T. (2011). Pedagogical applications of vlogs: An investigation into ESP
learners’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 736–746.
doi:10.1111/j.1467–8535.2010.01086.x
Internet World Stats. (2015). Internet users. Retrieved from http://www.internetlives-
tats.com/internet-users/
Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation
syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23, 83–103.
doi:10.1093/applin/23.1.83
Jenkins, J. (2011). Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43, 926–936. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.011
Kajder, S., & Swenson, J. A. (2004). Digital images in the language arts classroom.
Learning & Leading With Technology, 31(8), 18–46. Retrieved from http://files.eric.
ed.gov/fulltext/EJ695775.pdf
Kao, S. M., & Wang, D. P. (2013). The impacts of globalization on assessing oral
presentation. In W. Tsou & S. M. Kao (Eds.), Towards a new paradigm for teaching
and learning higher education in Taiwan (pp. 85–108). Taipei, Taiwan: Bookman
Books.

1266
 Trends for English Academic Oral Presentations
*Kao, S. M., & Wang, W. C. (2014). Lexical and organizational features in novice and
experienced ELF presentations. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3, 49–79.
doi:10.1515/jelf–2014–0003
Kay, R. H. (2012). Exploring the use of video podcasts in education: A comprehensive
review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 820–831. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2012.01.011
Kim, S. (2006). Academic oral communication needs of East Asian international grad-
uate students in non-science and non-engineering fields. English for Specific
Purposes, 25, 479–489. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2005.10.001
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary com-
munication. London, England: Routledge.
Laborda, J. G. (2011). Revisiting materials for teaching languages for specific pur-
poses. Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 17(1), 102–112.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED524345.pdf
Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chatroom: Global
and local considerations. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 44–66. Retrieved
from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num3/pdf/lam.pdf
Lee, J. J. (2009). Size matters: An exploratory comparison of small-and large-class
university lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 42–57.
doi:10.1016/j.esp.2008.11.001
*Lee, L. (2014). Digital news stories: Building language learners’ content knowledge
and speaking skills. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 338–356. doi:10.1111/flan.12084
Leki, I. (2007). Undergraduates in a second language: Challenges and complexities of
academic literacy development. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern
Language Journal, 93, 769–782. doi:10.1111/j.1540–4781.2009.00972.x
Liu, G. Z. (2008). Innovating research topics in learning technology: Where are the
new blue oceans? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 738–747.
doi:10.1111/j.1467–8535.2008.00851.x
Liu, G. Z. (2011). The blended language learning course in Taiwan: Issues & chal-
lenges of instructional design. In J. Macalister & I. S. P. Nation (Eds.), Case studies
in language curriculum design: Concepts and approaches in action around the
world (pp. 82–100). New York, NY: Routledge.
Liu, G. Z., & Chen, A. S. W. (2007). A taxonomy of internet-based technologies inte-
grated in language curricula. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 934–
938. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8535.2007.00728.x
Liu, G. Z., Chiu, W. Y., Lin, C. C., & Barrett, N. E. (2014). English for scientific pur-
poses (EScP): Technology, trends, and future challenges for science education.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 827–839. doi:10.1007/s10956–
014–9515–7
Liu, G. Z., Liu, Z. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2011). Developing multi-dimensional evalua-
tion criteria for English learning websites with university students and professors.
Computers & Education, 56, 65–79. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.019
Liu, G. Z., Lu, H. C., & Lai, C. T. (2014). Towards the construction of a field: The
developments and implications of mobile assisted language learning (MALL).
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 1–17. doi:10.1093/llc/fqu070

1267
Barrett & Liu
Lockyer, L., & Patterson, J. (2008). Integrating social networking technologies in edu-
cation: A case study of a formal learning environment. Eighth IEEE International
Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 1, 529–523. doi:10.1109/
ICALT.2008.67
Loncar, M., Barrett, N. E., & Liu, G. Z. (2014). Towards the refinement of forum and
asynchronous online discussion in educational contexts worldwide: Trends and
investigative approaches within a dominant research paradigm. Computers &
Education, 73, 93–110. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.007
Lu, X. F. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral
narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 190–208.
doi:10.1111/j.1540–4781.2011.01232.x
Mauranen, A., Hynninen, N., & Ranta, E. (2010). English as an academic lingua franca:
The ELFA project. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 183–190. doi:10.1016/j.
esp.2009.10.001
Mayadas, A. F., Bourne, J., & Bacsich, P. (2009). Online education today. Science, 323,
85–89. doi:10.1126/science.1168874
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2007). Social software and participatory learning:
Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the web 2.0 era. In R. J. Atkinson,
C. McBeath, S. K. A. Soong, & C. Cheers (Eds.), Proceedings from ascilite Singapore
2007: ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning (pp. 664–675). Singapore:
Centre for Educational Development, Nanyang Technological University. Retrieved
from http://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/R/?func=dbin–jump–full&object_
id=1758&local_base=GEN01–CSU01
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalized and self-regulated learning in the
web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 28–43. Retrieved from http://
ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET
Meierkord, C. (2000). Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction. An analy-
sis of non-native-/non-native small talk conversations in English. Linguistik
Online, 5. Retrieved from https://bop.unibe.ch/linguistik–online/article/
view/1013/1673
Morell, T. (2015). International conference paper presentations: A multimodal analysis
to determine effectiveness. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 137–150. doi:10.1016/j.
esp.2014.10.002
*Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a
TESL graduate program. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 279–310. doi:10.2307/3587953
Morton, J. (2009). Genre and disciplinary competence: A case study of contextualiza-
tion in an academic speech genre. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 217–229.
doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.04.005
Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowl-
edge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Nickerson, C. (2013). English for specific purposes and English as a lingua franca. In
B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes
(pp. 446–460). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity. A language socialization perspective.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 287–306. doi:10.1207/
s15327973rlsi2603_3

1268
 Trends for English Academic Oral Presentations
Ogawa, R. T., & Malen, B. (1991). Towards rigor in reviews of multivocal literature:
Applying the exploratory case method. Review of Educational Research, 61, 265–
286. doi:10.3102/00346543061003265
Ohler, J. (2006). The world of digital storytelling. Educational Leadership, 63(4),
44–47. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/
dec05/vol63/num04/The-World-of-Digital-Storytelling.aspx
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). How many students
study abroad and where do they go? In Education at a glance 2012: Highlights (pp.
24–26). Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/highlights.pdf
Parkinson, J. (2013). English for science and technology. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield
(Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 156–173). Oxford,
England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Payne, J. S., & Ross, B. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 oral
proficiency development. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 35–54. Retrieved
from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/pdf/payne.pdf
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchro-
nous CMC. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/
html/article_327.pdf
Prior, P. (2005). Moving multimodality beyond the binaries: A response to Gunther
Kress’ “Gains and losses.” Computers and Composition, 22, 23–30. doi:10.1016/j.
compcom.2004.12.007
Prior, P. (2013). Multimodality and ESP research. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.),
The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 520–534). Oxford, England:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Qi, Y., & Ding, Y. (2011). Use of formulaic sequences in monologues of Chinese EFL
learners. System, 39, 164–174. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.02.003
*Radzuan, N. R. M., & Kaur, S. (2011). Technical oral presentations in English: Qualitative
analysis of Malaysian engineering undergraduates’ sources of anxiety. Procedia: Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1436–1445. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.383
Randolph, J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical
Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14(13), 1–13. Retrieved from http://pareon-
line.net/getvn.asp?v=14&n=13
Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K., Bacigalupo, M., Ferrari, A., & Punie, Y. (2009). Learning
2.0: The impact of web 2.0 innovations on education and training in Europe.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission.
doi:10.2791/33043
Robin, B. R. (2009). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st cen-
tury classroom. Theory Into Practice, 47, 220–228. doi:10.1080/00405840802153916
*Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2002). Visual discourse in scientific conferences. A genre based
study. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 19–40. doi:10.1016/S0889–4906(00)00024–7
*Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). Genre awareness and rhetorical
appropriacy: Manipulation of information structure by native speaker and non-
native speaker scientists in the international conference setting. English for Specific
Purposes, 24, 41–64. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2003.09.003
Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2008). The rhetoric of conference paper
introductions: Context, interaction and argument. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 15, 45–69. doi:10.1111/j.1473–4192.2005.00080.x

1269
Barrett & Liu
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–239. doi:10.1017/S0267190504000145
Sharma, P., & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond
the language classroom. Oxford, England: Macmillan.
*Shih, R. (2010). Blended learning using video-based blogs: Public speaking for
English as a second language students. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 6, 883–897.
Soler, V. (2011). Comparative and contrastive observations on scientific titles written
in English and Spanish. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 124–137. doi:10.1016/j.
esp.2010.09.002
Spence, P., & Liu, G. Z. (2013). Engineering English and the high–tech industry: A
case study of an English needs analysis of process integration engineers at a semi-
conductor manufacturing company in Taiwan. English for Specific Purposes, 32,
97–109. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2012.11.003
*Stapa, M., Asniza Murad, N., & Ahmad, N. (2014). Engineering technical oral pre-
sentation: Voices of the stakeholder. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118,
463–467. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.063
*Sun, Y. C. (2009). Voice blog: An exploratory study of language learning. Language
Learning & Technology, 14(2), 88–103. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol-
13num2/default.html
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Sykes, J. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral
and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22, 399–431. Retrieved from https://calico.org/
html/article_142.pdf
Tardy, C. M. (2005). Expressions of disciplinarity and individuality in a multimodal
genre. Computers and Composition, 22, 319–336. doi:10.1016/j.comp-
com.2005.05.004
Tardy, C. M. (2009). Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Tsai, S. C. (2009). Courseware development for semiconductor technology and its
application into instruction. Computers & Education, 52, 834–847. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2008.12.010
*Tsai, S. C. (2010). Developing and integrating courseware for oral presentations into
ESP learning Contexts. Computers & Education, 55, 1245–1258. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2010.05.021
*Tsai, S. C. (2011).Courseware integration into task-based learning: A case study of
multimedia courseware-supported oral presentations for non-English major stu-
dents. ReCALL, 23, 117–134. doi:10.1017/S0958344011000048
van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2015). Towards a set of design
principles for developing oral presentation competence: A synthesis of research in
higher education. Educational Research Review, 14, 62–80. doi:10.1016/j.
edurev.2015.02.002
Volle, L. M. (2005). Analyzing oral skills in voice e-mail and online interviews.
Language Learning & Technology, 9, 146–163. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/
vol9num3/volle/default.html
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

1270
 Trends for English Academic Oral Presentations
Warschauer, M. (1998). Researching technology in TESOL: Determinist, instrumental,
and critical approaches. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 757–761. doi:10.2307/3588010
Warschauer, M., Shetzer, H., & Meloni, C. (2000). Internet for English teaching.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Webber, P. (2005). Interactive features in medical conference monologue. English for
Specific Purposes, 24, 157–181. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.003
Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: An ethnographic study of L2 social-
ization. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 473–503. doi:10.2307/3588072
Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC
Journal, 37, 308–328. doi:10.1177/0033688206071315
Wulff, S., Swales, J. M., & Keller, K. (2009). “We have about seven minutes for ques-
tions”: The discussion sessions from a specialized conference. English for Specific
Purposes, 28, 79–92. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2008.11.002
*Yang, L. (2010). Doing a group presentation: Negotiations and challenges experi-
enced by five Chinese ESL students of commerce at a Canadian university. Language
Teaching Research, 14, 141–160. doi:10.1177/1362168809353872
*Zareva, A. (2009). Informational packaging, level of formality, and the use of circum-
stance adverbials in L1 and L2 student academic presentations. Journal of English
for Academic Purposes, 8, 55–68. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.002
*Zareva, A. (2011) “And so that was it”: Linking adverbials in student academic pre-
sentations. RELC Journal, 42, 5–15. doi:10.1177/003368821039066

Authors
NEIL E. BARRETT is a PhD candidate in the Department of Foreign Languages &
Literature at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Taiwan. He is a lecturer in
the English Language Center at Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology
in Tainan, Taiwan. He has published in Computers & Education, Journal of Science
Education & Technology, and other journals. His research interests include English for
academic purposes, oral presentations, academic literacy, e-learning, and computer-
mediated communication. His email is baoneer@gmail.com.
GI-ZEN LIU is a professor in the Department of Foreign Languages & Literature at NCKU
in Taiwan. He received his PhD degree in Instructional Systems Technology from
Indiana University Bloomington in the U.S. in 2003. His research interests include
computer assisted language learning, context-aware mobile learning, plagiarism avoid-
ance, blended language learning, online writing tutorials, and Learning Technology.
Professor Liu has received four research merit awards from the Ministry of Science and
Technology in Taiwan in 2012-2015. As a corresponding author of this article, Prof.
Liu can be reached through the email gizen@mail.ncku.edu.tw.

1271