Conceptualizing presentation training program

A change model provides an appropriate framework for conceptualizing a presentation training program. A change model includes the mechanisms that are assumed to have the intended effects on the outcomes, in this case on presentation competence (Nelson et al., 2012).

These mechanisms, also labeled core components, represent the essential, evidence-based principles of an effective program (Blase & Fixsen, 2013).

Based on two central publications, Böhme’s rhetorical didactics (2015) and van Ginkel, Gulikers, Biemans, and Mulder’s design principles for developing presentation competence (2015), mechanisms for presentation training can be classified under the following core components: theoretical input, transfer, model learning, practice, feedback, and teaching self-regulated learning. Both publications reviewed existing training research on the target group of adults and young adults. Böhme (2015) deduced core components from her review of rhetorical teaching programs. These core components are not meant to be exhaustive, but must nevertheless be taken into account in rhetorical trainings. Van Ginkel, Gulikers, Biemans, and Mulder (2015) focused on training research from an empirical education perspective. Their design principles were deduced from a set of fifty-two relevant publications from the higher education context in the last 20 years and provide “a comprehensive, but concrete perspective for the design of education courses aiming at oral presentation competence development” (van Ginkel et al., 2015, p. 63). Generally speaking, these core components are described on an abstract level and must be concretized in the specific training context. They are also in line with recent conceptualizations of presentation training among school students (e.g., Herbein, 2017).

Theoretical input. This refers to teaching fundamental knowledge to provide an orientation for acting in relevant situations. This knowledge should be generally applicable in numerous situations, but should at the same time be specificied by discussing examples so that students can recognize characteristics of specific situations (Böhme, 2015). Theoretical input also needs to relate new knowledge to learners’ existing knowledge. Previous evidence-based research (see the overview by van Ginkel et al., 2015) has revealed that presentation knowledge

can be expanded through teacher-centered talks or learning materials outside the classroom (Mino & Butler, 1997). This theoretical input seeks to foster cognitive learning goals (Böhme, 2015).

Transfer. This core component supports the learner’s application of what he/she has learned to the context he/she faces after training. In this context, the authentic construction of presentation tasks (van Ginkel et al., 2015) as well as the reflection phase after an exercise (Böhme, 2015) play important roles. Several studies provide empirical evidence for this mechanism in the presentation context. Regarding authentic task construction (see an overview by van Ginkel et al., 2015), for example, practicing in front of a real audience (e.g., Chan, 2011;

Tucker & McCarthy, 2001) and selecting a presentation topic students found relevant and interesting led to better presentation competence (De Grez, Valcke, & Roozen, 2009b).

Regarding the reflection phase, for example, Böhme (2015) points to teachers’ demonstrations of alternative presentation behaviors when situations change.

Model learning. The model learning process begins with observing a given behavior and ultimately results in modeling that behavior. Role models can be non-experts, such as peers, or experts, such as teachers or professionals (see overview by van Ginkel et al., 2015, pp. 70–

71). Empirical examples reveal that both peer models and expert models positively affect presentation competence (e.g., Adams, 2004; De Grez, Valcke, & Roozen, 2009a; Pittenger, 2004). In ancient rhetorical training, the term imitatio refers to this kind of learning, in particular to imitations of rhetorical speeches (Kaminski & De Rentiis, 1998). Contemporary rhetorical training also uses dynamic ideal models, for example, by showing videos of model speeches (Böhme, 2015). Dynamic visualized models in rhetorical training are considered suitable for improving body language and voice, while static models such as text examples are considered suitable for strengthening language use. In addition, teachers must verbally comment on the models’ actions; pointing to positive and negative models can make learning from models more clear (Dennen & Burner, 2008).

Practice. Providing practice opportunities is a further core component. Practicing results in better presentation performance (van Ginkel et al., 2015). Previous presentation research has reported empirical evidence on the effectiveness of practicing (e.g., Smith & Sodano, 2011).

Although the optimal amount of rehearsing is still debated, research findings indicate that great progress in presentation competence takes place even from the first to the second run-through (De Grez, Valcke, & Roozen, 2009a). In ancient rhetorical training, Quintilian identified practice (exercitatio) as a crucial component of speaker training in his Institutio oratoria (IV, 1, 3–4). Contemporary rhetorical trainings also emphasize this core component (Böhme, 2015).

Feedback. This refers to assessing a learner and communicating this assessment in a way that allows learning progress to take place (Hattie & Timperley, 2016). Thereby, feedback that is explicit, contextual (appropriate to the situation) and tactful (taking into account students’

presentation level, motivation level, personality level and feedback sensitivity) appears to be effective in enhancing presentation competence (van Ginkel et al., 2015). In addition, Böhme (2015) underlines that the timing of feedback is important. Feedback can be either immediate and simultaneous or delayed. In addition, feedback from both teachers and peer group members can foster presentation competence; however, peers should learn how to assess presentation competence beforehand (van Ginkel et al., 2015). Empirical studies (for an overview see van Ginkel et al., 2015) have revealed that explicit and contextual feedback is effective (Haber &

Lingard, 2001). Further studies have reported that delayed feedback is most suitable for content-related aspects of the presentation, such as the introduction, because changing the content requires careful reflection. Immediate feedback is most suitable for behavior-based aspects of a presentation, such as eye contact (see; Böhme, 2015; King et al., 2000).

Teaching self-regulated learning. Self-regulated learning is based on continuously monitoring the status quo level with an eye to the desired goal (De Grez, 2009). Previous research has revealed that within this framework, goal setting is effective when the learner formulates and creates specific, directed goals, because presentation competence cannot be learned by focusing on all components at the same time (van Ginkel et al., 2015). Setting specific presentation goals was found to result in better oral presentations than setting general presentation goals (De Grez, Valcke, & Roozen, 2009b). Previous research regarding self-assessment, including self-monitoring and self-evaluating one’s own performance and developing strategies to improve performance (see an overview by van Ginkel et al., 2015), has also demonstrated the effectiveness of this mechanism (e.g., Bourhis & Allen, 1998; Smith &

Sodano, 2011). In traditional rhetorical training, this aspect was not explicitly stressed.

However, contemporary rhetorical trainings integrate self-assessments and also include video-recording as a tool for self-assessment (Böhme, 2015).

However, some limitations must also be taken into account when considering these core components of presentation competence trainings. Although they are based on empirical evidence, presentation research lacks large datasets (Böhme, 2015). Moreover, in several areas there is only a single existing empirical study. Furthermore, combinations of these core components have not been empirically tested for effectiveness. It is even not possible to name the most effective teaching method – the realization of the core components – because research on presentation trainings have hardly not yet tested these methods against each other (Böhme,

2015). Certain constructs behind these methods could also be relevant in presentation trainings, making these core components non-exhaustive. However, although some open questions remain and future research appears necessary, these core components have been found to be effective in evidence-based research on presentation trainings for university students and young professionals. Because no equivalent examinations have been conducted among secondary school students, and corresponding studies in the context of secondary education are scarce, transferring these core components from the higher education context to the secondary school context appears reasonable. The overlap between core components for higher education and secondary school education supports this transfer. For example, the core component of feedback is effective not only in higher education but also for secondary school students (Hattie, 2009, 2011). In addition, from a practical point of view, core components such as practice and model learning were part of ancient rhetorical trainings (Kaminski & De Rentiis, 1998) and continue to be part of contemporary trainings for secondary school students (Böhme, 2015).

Consequently, practical tests have been conducted supporting the transfer of these core components to secondary school students.

These core components illustrate mechanisms that must be operationalized in concrete teaching methods within a presentation training manual. A practical example is the presentation training program Youth Presents. Youth Presents is the largest presentation contest for secondary school students in Germany, involving more than 4500 participants in 2019 (Jugend präsentiert, 2019). The contest consists of several rounds and culminates in the national final, in which six presenters compete against each other. A presentation training program called Presentation Academy takes place before the finals. This two-and-a-half-day training is an example of a short extracurricular presentation training program for secondary school students.

It is divided into different modules addressing the following content: "Addressing the audience", "Language use and structure", “Visual aids”, “Body language & voice". The training is conducted by six rhetoric trainers, rhetoric graduates and experts in presentation competence from the presentation research center at the University of Tübingen.